Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of training centres for women and girls and men which are at present established in Great Britain; how many trainees are receiving training at these centres; and the numbers that are undergoing training for home employment or overseas settlement?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): Forty-four training centres for women and girls and 18 for men administered or financially assisted by my Department are in operation in Great Britain. At these centres on 19th July, 4,775 men and 938 women and girls were in training for employment in this country and 77 women for oversea settlement.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say how many of the number were in adult training?

Miss BONDFIELD: They were all adults.

YORKSHIRE TOWNS.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the percentage of unemployment in Leeds, Bradford, Hull, Sheffield, Halifax, and Middlesbrough, respectively, as compared with the average percentage for the whole country at the present time?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The table below shows the numbers of persons on the registers of certain Employment Exchanges at 14th July, 1930, expressed as a percentage of the insured population in those areas:


Locality.


Percentage.


Leeds
…
…
16.0


Bradford
…
…
23.9


Hull
…
…
17.8


Sheffield
…
…
23.1


Halifax
…
…
19.7


Middlesbrough
…
…
23.3


Great Britain
…
…
16.6

INSURANCE FUND (COMMITTEE).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour what will be the terms of reference to the Committee which has been set up to investigate the position of the Unemployment Insurance Fund; and whether it will be open to the Committee to inquire and report as to the varying standards of examination into the circumstances of applicants for unemployment benefit which are adopted by the different Employment Exchanges?

Mr. BUCHANAN: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour if any non-party committee has been set up by her to consider questions relating to unemployment insurance; if she will state both the terms of reference and status of any such committee; who are the members; if the meetings are to be held in public; if it is proposed to hear any evidence; if any meetings have yet taken place; and by what time it is expected the committee will report?

Miss BONDFIELD: In reply to these questions, I would refer to the reply given yesterday by the Prime Minister to the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), to which I have nothing to add.

Sir F. HALL: Will the Committee be able to make any regulations that will be binding upon all the Employment Exchanges so as to bring them into line?

Miss BONDFIELD: The Prime Minister's reply shows what will happen.

Later—

Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Lady did not give the particulars I asked for.

STATISTICS.

Sir F. HALL: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will arrange for a Return to be prepared for the information of the House showing for each Exchange the number of persons who have received unemployment benefit for six months or more during each year since they have been on the books of the Exchange; and the number of persons now receiving benefit who have at any time previously been convicted of fraudulent conduct in connection with the obtaining of such benefit or of any other offence against the law for which they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment?

Miss BONDFIELD: As regards the first part of the question, I regret that statistics are not available in the form desired by the hon. and gallant Member. I am, however, sending him a copy 01 the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for January last, which contains, on pages 6 to 8, an article giving some information on the subject obtained by means of a sample inquiry. Statistics are not available with regard to the second part of the question.

Sir F. HALL: Does not the right hon. Lady think more attention should be paid to the suggestion in the last part of my Question, and is she not aware that in such cases time after time men have been imprisoned and have come out of prison and then got unemployment benefit?

Miss BONDFIELD: May I point out to the hon. and gallant Member that they come to the Employment Exchange after having been in employment, and it is not for the Exchange to ask if they have been in prison.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Lady look into that part and see whether any alteration is necessary, in order that the Unemployment Fund should not be used for the purposes referred to?

EXCHANGES (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. L. SMITH: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour whether her Department has any sort of costing system under which it is possible to allocate to the different branches of Employment Exchange
activity the percentage of expenditure sanctioned by the House of Commons which may be incurred in carrying on such different branches; and, if no such costing system exists, whether she will consider the desirability of its immediate introduction?

Miss BONDFIELD: Such statistics of staff and work as are required for economical management and effective control are maintained. A costing system for the various items of work performed at the Employment Exchanges would entail considerable expense, and it does not appear that this expense would be likely to be justified by the practical value of the figures obtained.

Mr. SMITH: Having regard to the fact that the original function of the Employment Exchange was to introduce a man to employment, does not the right hon. Lady consider it advisable to find out the cost of such introductions?

Miss BONDFIELD: There is no question of any charge for placing people in employment, and the work varies so enormously in different districts that I do not see any value in trying to separate the cost of the work done by a man in placing as compared with the work done by the same man in other work of the Exchange.

Mr. SMITH: Cannot the right hon. Lady define the expenditure of the Exchanges on what they were originally intended for and on what they are now doing?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will certainly look into it.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of unemployed whose benefit has been disallowed at the Darlington Employment Exchange because of refusal to go to a training centre during each of the past six months; and what is the number of unemployed who have accepted training and proceeded to a centre during the same period?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Will the right hon. Lady watch very carefully that only
those who would be better off at a training centre are sent, as in many cases those who are better off at home are sent away, to the disadvantage both of themselves and the nation?

Miss BONDFIELD: That is one of the points that are being considered.

Following is the reply:—

The procedure under which men are required to attend a Course at a Transfer Instructional Centre as a condition for the continued receipt of unemployment benefit came into operation on 5th March, 1930. Since that date the number of unemployed men registered at the Darlington Employment Exchange who have had their benefit disallowed by reason of refusal to comply with a requirement to proceed to a Centre, during each month, is as follows:—


During March
Nil.


During April
Nil.


During May
4.


During June
Nil.


During July
28.

During the same period, 12 unemployed men, registered at the Darlington Exchange, have proceeded to Government Training Centres and 70 to Transfer Instructional Centres.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour if she has made inquiry into the case of Mr. Early, residing at 80, Rose Street, Glasgow, and signing at the South Side Employment Exchange; to what address the notice asking him to appear at his first court of referees was sent if she is aware that this man has constantly resided at 80, Rose Street for over 18 months; and if any steps are to be taken to pay benefit for the weeks which he is now due?

Miss BONDFIELD: The first notice to attend a hearing by the court of referees was addressed to 34, South Shamrock Street, which was, according to the Employment Exchange records, Mr. Early's address while he was registered as a non-claimant, though I understand he states that he has never resided there. I now find that he gave the address at 80, Rose Street, when he made a fresh claim on 13th March, and I very much regret that the notice to attend the hearing was sent to the wrong address. As my hon. Friend is aware, as soon as the
mistake was brought to the notice of the Exchange, steps were at once taken to give him a fresh hearing. With regard to the last part of the question, I am making further inquiry.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Lady give the facts? This man has no means and is now entitled to get benefit. There is no doubt that under the Statute a man must be taken before a court of referees before his benefit can be stopped, and will she not therefore restore this man's benefit and carry out the Act?

Miss BONDFIELD: Obviously, it is not within my power to restore benefit.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But it is in her power to see that the Act is carried out. In view of the fact that benefit was stopped to this man before he got his court of referees, will she not see that benefit is paid until the Act says that it has to be stopped—until he got his court of referees?

Miss BONDFIELD: He has had a second court, and, with regard to the latter part of the question, I am making closer inquiries, but I have not yet got the information.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On that point, is the right hon. Lady aware that it is established that the man's benefit was stopped before he got his court of referees, that on the first court of referees it was stopped, and will she not therefore see that the benefit is paid for the period until he got the court of referees?

Miss BONDFIELD: That is the point into which I am making further inquiries.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour why benefit is not being paid to Mrs. Logue, of No. 822, Rutherglen Road, Glasgow, and signing at the South Side Exchange; if she is aware that the umpire decided that, in view of this woman being over 30 years in her previous employment, and that she had gone to the United States to get work and was solely dependent on her own earnings to keep herself, if she could secure one week's work benefit was to be paid; and, seeing she was able to get several week's work, who is interfering with the umpire's decision?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am making inquiry and will let my hon. Friend know the result.

Mr. BATEY: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants in the county of Durham who have been refused unemployment benefit since the passing of the 1929 Act on the grounds that they were not normally employed in insurable employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: The statistics desired are being tabulated, and as soon as they are completed, I will send them to my hon. Friend.

Mr. BATEY: Has the right hon. Lady got tables for the boroughs as well as the counties, and when she makes the calculation could she divide them?

Miss BONDFIELD: I will see.

FARM WORKERS, NORTHANTS.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that unemployed farm workers are refused employment on road schemes in Northants; and whether this is in accordance with Departmental instructions to the Northants County Council?

Miss BONDFIELD: There are no such instructions. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any cases he has in mind, I will have inquiry made.

COURTS OF REFEREES.

Mr. BATEY: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any steps will be taken in the next Session of Parliament to amend the Unemployment Act, 1929, so that. she can deal with complaints sent to her by Members of this House with regard to the decisions of courts of referees?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, Sir. I do not think the Minister should have any discretionary power with regard to the grant or refusal of unemployment benefit.

Mr. BATEY: Is the Minister not aware that it has always been the privilege of Members of this House to send complaints and have them considered, and that now she is making it useless for Members to send in complaints because she gives one stereotyped reply, and hides behind the courts of referees? Will she not take steps to have the 1929 Act altered, so that Members can send cases to her?

Miss BONDFIELD: No. So far as I am concerned, I will not.

RELIEF SCALES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. STEPHEN: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to call a conference of local authorities to consider the scales of relief being paid by public assistance committees, with a view to the provision of adequate maintenance to the able-bodied unemployed and their dependants?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): The new Poor Law authorities took over their duties only at 15th May last and are in many cases at present engaged in revising the scales of relief to be paid in their areas, and I understand that in the case of Lanarkshire a conference between representatives of the Public Assistance Committees and Members of Parliament for the county will shortly be held. In the circumstances my right hon. Friend feels that it would be premature to convene such a conference as is suggested, but when the results of the revision are known he will take steps to confer with particular local authorities whose scale of relief may appear to be unreasonably low.

Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the fact that the scales have been definitely decided by Glasgow, and in the -Under-Secretary's own opinion the amount for the children is inadequate, will he make representations in order that there may be more adequate scales for payment?

Mr. JOHNSTON: In my right hon. Friend's view, any steps to have a conference or discussion on the subject would be premature.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will action be taken before the winter?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Mostly certainly. The point Is that the local authorities only entered on their duties on 15th May last, and they are at present revising the scale.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Am I right in saying that relief of this kind was never paid or asked for in Scotland until the coal strike of 1926?

Oral Answers to Questions — RESTAURANTS (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. STEPHEN: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour what are the average working
hours of waiters and waitresses in Glasgow restaurants, and the average rate of wages paid to such workers; and when it is proposed to set up a trade board for is proposed to set up a Trade Board for such workers?

Miss BONDFIELD: A report upon inquiries which have been made in the catering trade will be issued within, the next few weeks and will give particulars of the hours and wages of workers in restaurants in Great Britain as a whole. Separate particulars for towns or districts cannot be given. In reply to the last part of the question, I propose to issue a Notice of Intention to apply the Acts to the catering trade at an early date.

Mr. McSHANE: Is it not possible from the evidence taken for the right hon. Lady to give the information asked for in the question?

Miss BONDFIELD: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD BUILDINGS (DEMOLITION).

Mr. DAY: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to several recent accidents to workmen caused by the demolition of old buildings; and whether he will consider strengthening the existing law for the protection of workmen engaged on such work?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): I do not know to what accidents the hon. Member specially refers, but a number of accidents to persons employed in the work of demolition have come to the notice of the Factory Department during recent months. The present Factory Act provides only for the protection of those employed in construction or structural repair of buildings, but it is proposed in the Factories Bill to include demolition.

Mr. DAY: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to any recommendation of juries on inquests with regard to accidents arising from this cause?

Mr. CLYNES: I have no special information about such recommendations.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government are going to bring in the suggested Factories Bill?

Mr. CLYNES: It is too early to make an announcement on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAGISTRATES, LONDON.

Mr. DAY: 19.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed in the near future to appoint any further additional magistrates for the London area?

Mr. CLYNES: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. DAY: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are sufficient magistrates to deal with the question?

Mr. CLYNES: The number of magistrates is up to the maximum provided for by Statute, and is, I am informed, quite adequate.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE OFFENDER (SENTENCE, LEICESTER).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 20.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case of a boy of 16 years of age who was recently convicted of stealing a bicycle at Leicester and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, although he had never been previously convicted; and whether he will consider this case with a view to the reduction of the sentence?

Mr. KINLEY: 25.
asked the Home Secretary if he has received a resolution from the Liverpool city justices with reference to the case of Matthew Rolison, 16 years of age, who was sentenced to six months' hard labour for a first offence; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. CLYNES: I have received the resolution passed by the Liverpool Justices, and I have given the whole case my most careful consideration. The question I have had to consider is not whether imprisonment could be avoided for this boy. He had been in prison over a month when my attention was first drawn to the case, and I have of course no power to substitute for a sentence of imprisonment some other adjudication. The only question for me was whether there were any considerations, including the consideration of the boy's own interests, which would have justified me in
recommending a reduction of the length of the sentence. After full inquiry and anxious deliberation I came to the conclusion that the best thing in the circumstances was to utilise so far as possible the period of imprisonment for training the boy. He and other young prisoners are kept separate from the adult prisoners and arrangements are made for their special treatment. The Young Prisoners' Committee at Liverpool Prison has also been asked to give special consideration to this case and to co-operate with the local Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society with a view, if possible, to finding him suitable employment on his discharge. I shall ask later for a report on the boy's progress.

Mr. KINLEY: Will the Home Secretary not agree that it is an evil thing that a sentence of six months' imprisonment should have been inflicted for a first offence; and will he not, as Home Secretary, try to see that the prison contact shall be reduced to a minimum?

Mr. CLYNES: It would be improper for me to express an opinion on the decision of the court, but the meaning of the concluding words of my reply is that, when I receive this further report from Liverpool, I shall take into consideration the point of view expressed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUG TRAFFIC (EGYPT).

Mr. MANDER: 21.
asked the Home Secretary if he has any information with regard to the carrying of illicit drugs by the Khedivial line between Constantinople and Egypt; and whether any action has been taken or is contemplated?

Mr. CLYNES: I understand that there have been a number of attempts to smuggle drugs into Egypt on boats of this line, as on other lines plying between Egypt and European ports. The Central Narcotics Intelligence Bureau in Cairo has called the attention of the company to the occurrence of these cases, and the company inform me that they have instructed their agents to co-operate in every possible way with the Bureau to prevent use being made of their ships for this purpose, and that this is being done.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTORING OFFENCES (SUMMONSES).

Colonel ASHLEY: 23.
asked the Home Secretary the terms of the circular letter which the Minister of Transport promised, on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, should be issued to chief constables on the passing of the Road Traffic Bill, emphasising the necessity of specifying on summonses for dangerous, or careless driving, or exceeding the speed limit the precise charge which is made against the individual in order that he may have exact notice of the charge against him; and whether a date has been fixed for the issue of such a circular?

Mr. CLYNES: I cannot yet give the terms of the circular. It will probably be issued shortly before the earliest date on which, as announced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, the new provisions are likely to come into effect, that is, before November next.

Colonel ASHLEY: Then I take it that the promise which the Under-Secretary made in Committee upstairs will be carried out?

Mr. CLYNES: I think so.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider incorporating in the regulations reference to the fact, which may not be known to the police, that the 10-mile speed limit will become inoperative as a result of the Bill, and that therefore the existing signs all over the country will no longer apply?

Mr. CLYNES: That point is worth consideration.

LIVERPOOL STREET AND ILFORD (TUBE).

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: 65.
asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in his efforts to get a tube built between Liverpool Street Station and Ilford; and what he is doing to deal with the congestion of traffic on this line, which is daily getting worse?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am informed by the London and North Eastern Railway Company that they are not yet in a position to make any further announcement in reference to this scheme, on which they are still awaiting the report of their
consulting engineers. I have called the attention of the Company to the statement made by the hon. Member in the latter part of his question.

Sir G. HAMILTON: May I ask whether the £75,000,000 which was promised for the improvement of traffic conditions at Liverpool Street Station is still promised, or what is the position?

Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Member has asked a question as to the position of the scheme, and I have told him that the progress of the scheme depends in the main upon the policy and determination of the London and North Eastern Railway Company.

Mr. HARRIS: Could not the hon. Gentleman bring some "ginger" to bear upon the company?

Mr. MORRISON: The House must realise that these railways belong to private persons, and that the Minister of Transport cannot be expected to handle the London and North Eastern Railway Company as if it were a nationalised concern.

Sir G. HAMILTON: Is it not the case that, under the London Traffic Pool proposed and opposed by hon. Members opposite, this problem would have been dealt with long ago?

Mr. MORRISON: The rejected Bills would not have had the slightest influence on this matter.

Mr. BROAD: In view of the unsatisfactory conduct of this railway, is it not time that it was nationalised?

MR. I. A. MAXTON (OMNIBUS).

Sir G. HAMILTON: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is yet in a position to state what arrangements he has been able to make with Mr. I. A. Maxton, who wishes to operate an omnibus?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Mr. Maxton is at present operating an omnibus in the London Traffic Area, and the question of the legality of his action, having regard to the restrictions imposed under the London Traffic Act on the plying for hire by omnibus in the Metropolitan Police District, is at present under consideration.

Sir G. HAMILTON: Has not this matter been under consideration for some weeks, if not months, and cannot the hon. Gentleman "ginger up" somebody, so as to get a satisfactory answer?

Mr. MORRISON: I have had a large number of communications which Mr. Maxton has caused to be sent to me and to other Members of Parliament, and I have not seen my way to accede to his request. It would appear that he is now breaking the law and the situation is under consideration.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many persons Mr. Maxton's omnibus holds

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the Minister if this gentleman's case is being prejudiced in any way by a mistaken belief that he is any friend of mine? [Interruption.]

MID-SCOTLAND CANAL SCHEME.

Mr. TRAIN: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport if he can now make a statement on the Report on the Mid-Scotland Ship Canal?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to questions on this subject by my hon. Friends the Members for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and Govan (Mr. Maclean), of which I am sending him a copy.

ROAD SCHEME, NORTHAMPTON.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that a scheme for a new road, submitted by the Northampton Borough Council has not obtained the concurrence of the Northamptonshire County Council, in whose area part of the route will lie; and whether he will take any steps to overcome the difficulties so that this work is put in hand before the winter?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I presume that my hon. Friend refers to a scheme put forward by the Northampton County Borough Council for the construction of a new road from Harborough Road to Duston Road, at an estimated cost of £85,000. The greater part of the route of the proposed road lies outside the county borough, and I am aware that the borough council has not obtained the concurrence of the North-
ampton County Council to the scheme. In a matter of this kind I can hardly usefully intervene except at the request of the authorities concerned. I shall be happy to give any assistance in my power towards solving the difficulties which have arisen, if asked to do so jointly by the county borough council and the county council.

MOTOR TRAFFIC (LIVESTOCK).

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in issuing regulations under the Road Traffic Bill, he will provide for the protection of horses, cattle and sheep travelling along public highways by authorising the slowing down or the stoppage of passing motor vehicles where a signal is given by the person in charge of such livestock that care must be exercised?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: A provision on the lines suggested by the hon. Member could be included in the Highway Code which the Road Traffic Bill would empower me to issue. Whilst I am not at present in a position to make any definite statement as to the contents of this code the hon. Member may accept my assurance that his suggestion will receive careful consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH PRISONERS.

Mr. KINLEY: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Irish political prisoners, Breen and Gavin, still in an English prison, are now receiving visitors; and, if not, for what reason are visitors not permitted?

Mr. CLYNES: These prisoners are allowed to receive visits under the prison rules on the same conditions as other convicts. During the last six months neither of them has in fact received a visit, but during that period no request for a visit has been received by the prison Governors. Two requests for special visits have been made to me that were refused because they did not come within the purposes for which visits can properly be allowed, and another request is under consideration.

Mr. KINLEY: In view of the fact that these two prisoners have for various reasons had no visits during six months,
will the right hon. Gentleman afford facilities for Members of this House who are interested to visit them?

Mr. CLYNES: I will, of course, be happly to afford facilities for visits if the visits come within the Regulations.

Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is in the interests of justice that Members of this House—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. KINLEY: May I request the Home Secretary to provide me with a copy of the Regulations?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, I shall be glad to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SURREY QUARTER SESSIONS.

Mr. EDE: 26.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to a circular from the Deputy-Clerk of the Peace for Surrey to the clerks of the Petty Sessions in that county, suggesting that there shall be a limitation to the number of justices attending Quarter Sessions and that the justices to attend shall be elected by the Petty Sessional Benches; and whether he will draw the attention of the authorities concerned to the right of every magistrate for the county who is so minded to attend Quarter Sessions whether elected or not?

Mr. CLYNES: I have obtained a copy of the circular letter in question enclosing a memorandum which has been sent by the general purposes committee of Surrey Quarter Sessions to the chairmen of the several county benches. In the memorandum it is clearly stated that every magistrate is entitled to attend Quarter Sessions, and no communication from me to the committee is therefore required. As, however, there are 343 county magistrates entitled to attend, it is obvious that some general understanding is desirable to prevent inconvenience and overcrowding of the Court.

Mr. EDE: Has my right hon. Friend noticed in the memorandum which he quotes that the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions says that, if anyone dissents on the bench, it leads to a retirement and much waste of time; and will he bring to the notice of the Quarter Sessions the fact that it is their duty to administer
justice, and be sure that it shall be done, even if it involves some personal inconvenience?

Mr. CLYNES: The first two parts of the hon. Member's supplementary question deserve further consideration, and
I shall be happy to discuss the matter with him.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it undesirable that any person should interfere with justices of the peace in the execution of their duties?

Mr. CLYNES: Broadly and generally speaking, that is so, but this circular does not in the slightest way take away any individual rights of justices. It is an effort rather to organise attendance so as to prevent overlapping.

Mr. KNIGHT: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the part of the memorandum which calls attention to particular instances which may occur where justices dissent from a certain course, and I suggest that that is interference?

Mr. CLYNES: I have said that I shall be glad to give further consideration to that matter.

Mr. EDE: Did the right hon. Gentleman also notice in the memorandum that the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions proposes to exclude all but the senior members of the bench from attendance, and is it not as well to have some members of the Court who can hear the cases?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

EDUCATION BILL.

Mr. McSHANE: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is his intention to reintroduce the same Education Bill in the autumn that was recently withdrawn?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I am not at present in a position to add anything to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 25th June in regard to the proposals of the Government.

Mr. HARRIS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise how important it is that local authorities should know what
their position is likely to be in the autumn, as they are training students and putting up buildings in preparation for next year? Is it not important that they should have some more definite lead as to what is likely to be done?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I hope that my hon. Friend will read what the Prime Minister said.

Mr. McSHANE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether such a Bill will be introduced?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I would refer my hon. Friend also to the Prime Minister's Statement.

CONVEYANCE OF CHILDREN.

Viscount ELMLEY: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Education the reasons why he cannot increase the rate of the grant towards the cost of the conveyance of school children?

29. Mr. GOULD: asked the President of the Board of Education whether representations have been made to him by the Somerset County Education Committee respecting the additional cost arising out of the reorganisation of the schools and the need of conveying the children from the more distant places; and whether he proposes to increase the present 20 per cent. grant to a higher figure?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have received representations from the Somerset Local Education Authority in regard to the cost of conveying children to school. On the information which I have received up to the present time I do not think that an increase in the rate of grant would be justified. The expenditure on a particular service, such as this, and the proportion which falls on the Board's grant in respect of it, has to be considered in relation to the total expenditure incurred by the local education authorities on elementary education and the total amount of the Board's grant.

Viscount ELMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to the scattered rural districts in this matter?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have done so, but at the moment I do not see my way to do anything.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, on account of the policy of his Department, an increased expenditure of £40,000 has fallen on the education authority of the county of Somerset; and cannot he see his way to assist them to carry the burden which is cast on them in carrying out his policy?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am aware that the expenditure is heavy in some cases, but there are advantages which are obtained in other directions to compensate for it.

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: Am I right in thinking that the right hon. Gentleman also received communications on this subject from Shropshire and other areas?

TEACHERS (TRAINING).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he can now state how many of the two-year trained teachers, additional to the average annual output of the last four years Who may be expected to complete their training in July, 1932, and July, 1933, respectively, will be men and how many women; and how many in these two categories may be expected to be teachers of practical subjects?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am afraid that it will not be possible to give this information until particulars are available of the admissions to training colleges next autumn and in the autumn of 1931?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 34.
asked the Minister of Health the number of claims to date that have been rejected under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts for the last 12 months?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The number of claims for pension under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts which have been rejected in the last 12 months is 46,572.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to reflect on these figures during the Recess?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes, certainly; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will himself reflect on the fact that 465,000 awards have been made.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say also whether he is going to fulfil his pledge to the others?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE SCHEMES.

Sir K. WOOD: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he proposes, before the end of the Session, to make a statement concerning the progress of the committee which is inquiring into the extension and co-ordination of insurance schemes?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on 23rd January last on the same subject.

Sir K. WOOD: Inasmuch as this committee has now been sitting for many months, is the right hon. Gentleman unable to make any statement as to the progress that has been made, or what has been done, or whether anything has been done?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is not the custom of this House to report the Progress of committees.

Sir K. WOOD: Is not this a pure evasion—a smoke screen?

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

VAGRANCY.

Mr. HORRABIN: 36.
asked the Minister of Health when the report of the Commission on Vagrancy is to be issued; and whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction resulting from the delay in improving conditions in casual wards, particularly in rural areas?

Sir HENRY BETTERTON: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet received the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the question of vagrancy; whether he proposes to publish the report; and what action he intends to take upon it?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The report has been laid and will be available shortly.
I propose to address a circular letter in regard to it to the local authorities, and that letter also will be published in due course.

OUT-RELIEF (TEST WORK).

Mr. HORRABIN: 37.
asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that all the new public assistance committees are observing the terms of his circular, No. 1069; and whether he is contemplating any further action to mitigate the hardships of applicants for relief who are subjected to test-work conditions?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have no reason to be otherwise than generally satisfied with the action taken by the public assistance authorities in response to the circular letter mentioned by my hon. Friend, or to the later circular No. 1097 which forms part of the same policy. But if my hon. Friend has any case in mind in which he thinks that the spirit of these circulars has not been observed I shall be glad to make inquiry. The organisation of schemes of training and instruction naturally takes a certain amount of time, but both this and the other elements in the policy are being kept under continuous survey by the inspectors of the Ministry of Health, and what I may call the general outlook of the new public assistance authorities on these questions is an encouraging factor of the situation.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Has the Minister taken any action with regard to the Sunderland public assistance committee?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have not that matter in mind at the moment.

RELIEF SCALES, WEDNESBURY.

Mr. McSHANE: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the Wednesbury area of the Staffordshire public assistance committee there is considerable feeling aroused by the reduction of the scales of out-relief, particularly in the case of old and infirm people; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Parliamentary Secretary has to-day received a deputation on this subject, and I am instructing the inspector to look into the question whether the relief afforded in the area can be considered adequate.

Mr. McSHANE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the transfer of
these parishes there has been a reduction in the amount of the allowance given per week by as much as 15s. in some cases?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of that fact. I have said that my hon. Friend has received a deputation only to-day, and, on the basis of that, inquiries are being made.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE COMMITTEES (PRESS ADMISSION).

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 51.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of public assistance committees that have refused permission to the Press to attend the general meetings of the committees; and, if he is not in possession of this information, will he take steps to secure it?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that the information asked for by my hon. Friend is not in my possession, and that I do not think I should be justified in asking local authorities to furnish it, since, as I have previosuly pointed out, the matter is one which Parliament has left to the discretion of local authorities. Inquiries which I have made go to show that local authorities are averse from any interference with that discretion.

Mr. EDE: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he gave an undertaking some time ago that he would communicate with the County Councils' Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations on this matter in relation to a private Member's Bill, which is before the House? Has he so communicated; and, if so, what was the result of the inquiry?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have already stated in my answer that
Inquiries which I have made go to show that local authorities are averse from any interference with that discretion.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 51.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of old age pensions, contributory or non-contributory, who are also in receipt of Poor Law relief; and should this information not be available, whether he will take the necessary steps to secure it?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The number of pensioners in England and Wales over
65 years in receipt of pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act, 1908 to 1924, or the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and in receipt of Poor Law relief on the 1st January, 1930, was 104,499. Included in this figure were 2,293 widows over 65 years of age in receipt of widows' pensions under the Act of 1925.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPORTING RIGHTS (RATING).

Viscount ELMLEY: 38.
asked the Minister of Health if he will promote legislation to ensure the rating of all sporting rights, however held or occupied?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am advised that all sporting rights which are severed from the occupation of the land are rateable, and, while I sympathise with the object which the Noble Viscount has in view, I cannot undertake to introduce legislation to deal solely with the case of rights which are not severed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MENTAL TREATMENT.

Mr. RICHARDSON: 43.
asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the drafting of the Bill to do away with the differentiation hitherto existing in the procedure of certification in the case of the so-called pauper as compared with the private patient?

Mr. GREENWOOD: In the course of the consideration of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, notes were prepared on the Clauses that would be required to effect an assimilation of the procedure for the certification of rate-aided and private mental patients. But no steps have been taken towards the drafting of a Bill, because it is not practicable at present to undertake further lunacy legislation.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Was not a promise made to do this when the Bill was in Committee?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, I said that we were obtaining all the evidence, but I held out no hope of further legislation.

Mr. RICHARDSON: 47.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in accordance with the suggestion of his Parliamentary Secretary, made in response to
the wishes of the Standing Committee on the Mental Treatment Bill, certain places will be set apart to give separate accommodation to voluntary boarders; will he state how many of the hospitals which have hitherto been Poor Law infirmaries will be utilised for this purpose, so that those who have voluntarily submitted themselves to treatment shall not be housed in the same institutions as the certified; and how many hospitals (particularising general or mental) have started outpatient clinics for mental cases?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would remind my hon. Friend that the Mental Treatment Bill only received the Royal Assent on the 10th of this month, and does not come into operation until the 1st January, 1931. The Board of Control have already conferred with representatives of the local authorities in regard to some of the more important provisions of the Act; but until local authorities have had a reasonable opportunity of considering and determining the steps to be taken in their areas when the Act comes into operation, it is not possible to give the information asked for in this question.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear on the local authorities to carry this out?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Most certainly. We will do all that we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

STATISTICS.

Mr. GOSSLING: 44.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses built under the 1924 Act from July, 1928, to June, 1929; and the number built from July, 1929 to June, 1930?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The numbers for England and Wales were during the period 1st July, 1928, to 30th June, 1929, 51,282, and during the period 1st July, 1929, to 30th June, 1930, 54,159.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to make an acknowledgment now that private enterprise has saved the situation?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Not at all. If there is any moral to he drawn from this answer it is that in the past year municipal building has increased.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is it not a fact, that, the houses built by private enterprise increased at a far greater rate?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That may be true, but that was not the point of the question.

Mr. E. D. SIMON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these houses are the only working-class houses being built, and is he satisfied with that state of affairs?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I believe the hon. Member has a question on that point later.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it not a miserable failure?

RATE OF BUILDING.

Mr. SIMON: 46.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in the memorandum issued by the Ministry of Health in 1924, explaining the financial provisions of the Housing Act of 1924, it was estimated that 150,000 houses would be built under that Act in the year 1930; whether he is aware that the present rate of building is only about one-third of that foreseen in 1924; and what steps he proposes to take to treble the present rate of building so as to bring it into conformity with the proposals accepted by Parliament in 1924?

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member will look again at the paper to which he refers he will see that the figure of 150,000 covered houses built under the Housing Act of 1923 as well as under that of 1924. It was in fact the figure which the Building Industry Committee in their report Cmd. 2104 of 1924 had estimated as being attainable under the Housing Acts in 1930. In the 12 months ending on 31st March, 1930, the total actual output of houses by the building industry in England and Wales was 202,060.

Mr. SIMON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this White Paper gives a table of the subsidies on these houses, showing quite clearly that 150,000 houses have been built under the 1924 Act, and that for these houses the increased Exchequer contribution is available in all cases, and therefore what the right hon. Gentleman has just said is totally wrong?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I can only retort—[HON. MEMBERS "Answer!"]—that the undertaking which was given by the building industry covered houses of all kinds and under two Acts of Parliament, one of which was abolished before I took office.

Mr. SIMON: Might I be allowed to send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the White Paper?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I shall be very glad to read it again, but the hon. Gentleman's real difficulty is that he takes it that a house that is not subsidised is not a house at all.

Mr. STRACHEY: Will the new Bill raise the rate of building under the 1924 Act to 150,000 houses a year?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (PARLIAMENT).

Mr. STEPHEN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he can state when he proposes to set up a committee or royal commission to consider the question of setting up a Scottish Parliament?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I can add nothing to what has already been said in reply to questions on this subject.

Mr. STEPHEN: Owing to the noise in the House it was quite impossible for me to hear the answer. May it be read again?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I said that the Prime Minister could add nothing to what has already been said.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right bon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister made a definite promise in this connection, and is nothing to be done to keep that promise by setting up a commission?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The answer to that question is implied in, what I have said, that the Prime Minister can add nothing to what he has already said.

Sir F. HALL: Is not that the usual course of events—that none of the, promises of the Government are kept?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. GOULD: 48.
asked the Minister of Health whether, with regard to the re-
port which he has received from the Somerset Health Insurance Committee, in which it was stated that certain chemists had been dispensing in a very lax way under the National Health Insurance Act and that in one case a deficiency of 69 per cent. of the drugs as prescribed by the medical practitioner was dispensed to the patient, he will say what action he proposes to take in this matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The report which I understand that my hon. Friend has in mind was received yesterday, and any case of failure to comply with the terms of service applicable to insurance chemists will be dealt with in due course in accordance with the Medical Benefit Regulations.

Mr. GOULD: As this report has been given considerable publicity in the Press, and has left a very bad impression in the minds of the patients in regard to the quality of the dispensing, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the report, and take action in regard to those who maladminister the Act?

Mr. GREENWOOD: There is no delay on my part. There is a definite procedure to be followed under the Regulations in regard to my intervention, but I am afraid that point has not been reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 53.
asked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive the report on the effect of bovine tuberculosis on health; and if he will publish it during the Recess?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am unable at present to add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on 17th July.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the Minister of Health recognise that he promised this report in February last, and, as it has taken a good deal of time, will he undertake to accelerate it as far as possible?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the hon. and gallant Member is mistaken when
he says that I promised the report in February.

MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 54.
asked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive the report on maternal mortality; and if he will publish it during the Recess?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The interim report of the committee on maternal mortality will be published next week.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: When is the final report likely to be published, and will there be a long delay in regard to the interim report?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not visualise the final report. I understand that this is largely in the nature of a Standing Committee which will continue its investigations.

LONDON REFUSE (DISPOSAL).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 55.
asked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive the views of the local authorities on the Report of the Departmental Committee on the disposal of London refuse; and if he will publish them during the Recess?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The report is being considered by the Standing Joint Committee of the Metropolitan Borough Councils, but it appears that it will not be practicable for them to furnish their views during the Recess.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that this matter is not allowed to remain dormant during the Recess so that we shall not again be met with very much the same answer this time next year?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I hope the Recess will not last until this time next year.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

Mr. MORLEY: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the early abandonment of the gold exchange standard and the substitution for it of a managed paper currency on such a basis as to reduce the burden of the National Debt on the Exchequer and the burden of fixed charges upon industry?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, Sir; the suggested remedy would, I am afraid, produce evils far worse than those it was designed to cure.

Mr. MORLEY: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consider the alternative policy of imposing a special tax on incomes derived from War Debt investments?

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say if any legislation has been passed, or regulations agreed to, which would interfere with the freedom of this country at a later date in regard to the gold standard?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not aware of any.

Mr. HAYCOCK: Is it not a fact that we have not a gold standard at all, but a dollar standard?

Oral Answers to Questions — BANK OF INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the nationalities and salaries of the occupants of the following positions under the Young plan: president, vice-president, and director-general of the Bank of International Settlements?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The president of the Bank of International Settlements is a national of the United States of America. The two vice-chairmen are of British and German nationality, respectively; and the director-general is of French nationality. I have no information as to the remuneration attached to these posts.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer not aware that when addressing the House during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill I stated that these officers were not English people, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer corrected me? Was he not speaking under a misapprehension?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, I very well remember the point, but it was not the officers to whom the hon. Member has referred. I think he referred specially to officials of the bank.

Mr. HAMMERSLEY: It was specifically to those officers that I referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Sir K. WOOD: 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of claims since June, 1929, to date that have been rejected under the Old Age Pensions Acts?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The number of claims under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908–1924, rejected in the year ended 30th June, 1930, was approximately 15,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL AND INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS, LIMITED.

Mr. WELLOCK: 59.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, since the general meeting of Imperial and International Communications, Limited, there has been any reduction in the number of its directors, as per recommendation IV of the Imperial Wireless and Cable Conference?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: There has been no such reduction so far.

Mr. WELLOCK: Has the Advisory Committee made any recommendations with regard to getting rid of superfluous directors?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot say.

Mr. WELLOCK: Did the hon. Gentleman make any suggestions to that end?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

TITHE RENTCHARGE.

Mr. GRANVILLE: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the growing dissatisfaction with the position of tithe payment in relation to agriculture; and if he is prepared to receive a representative deputation on this problem?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): Tithe rentcharge is a landowner's liability and is taken into consideration on the occasion of the acquisition of property. I am unaware of any ground for relieving such owners of their legal obligation in the matter, and, in the absence of further information, I do not think that a deputation would serve any useful purpose.

MARKETING.

Mr. BROOKE: 62.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he intends to circulate a Bill containing the Government's proposals for the better marketing of agricultural produce before the close of the Session?

Dr. ADDISON: A Bill on this subject is being introduced to-day.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if this is really the Government's policy making its first appearance?

Dr. ADDISON: No, Sir.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Minister of Agriculture send a copy of the Bill to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood)?

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Mr. BROOKE: 63.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when it is proposed to announce the Government's policy for the betterment of agriculture?

Dr. ADDISON: It is proposed to make a statement on this subject to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND (MINING REGULATIONS).

Mr. HORRABIN: 70.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, seeing that Tshekedi-Khama, mining generally in the Bechuanaland and his advisers have intimated their willingness to accept liability for legal proceedings with regard to any mining concessions in Bechuanaland, he is prepared to postpone the issue of mining regulations until it is seen whether the parties concerned decide to proceed to legal action or, alternatively, make some new arrangement which might affect the character of such mining regulations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No, Sir. The mining legislation proposed is intended to regulate mining generally in the Bechunanaland Protectorate, and I see no reason why the present negotiations in regard to the mineral concession in the Bamangwato Reserve should affect the question.

Mr. HORRABIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the actual issue of regulations at this time would at least appear to prejudge the matter?

Mr. THOMAS: As I have informed the House, I am in negotiation with regard to the concession, which is a distinct and separate matter. The question of regulations with regard to mining is a general question, and not a particular one, but I am not unmindful of the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

MR. V. A. BUDD, ILFORD.

Sir G. HAMILTON: 71.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is yet in a position to make any statement regarding the case of Mr. V. A. Budd, of Ilford?

Mr. HAYES (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): In the unavoidable absence of my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Pensions, I have been asked to reply. The applicant's wife, who is acting on her husband's behalf, has been invited to furnish the usual information and evidence in support of the application, but this has not yet been furnished. As soon as a reply is received, the case will be considered, and the hon. Member will be informed of the result.

Sir G. HAMILTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is now over six weeks since I wrote to the Minister about this case, and that I am quite prepared to give particulars myself if the Minister will let me know what particulars he wants?

Mr. HAYES: I will convey the hon. Member's comment to my right hon. Friend.

ATTRIBUTABILITY.

Mr. LONGDEN: 72.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that a considerable number of ex-service men are unable to qualify for pension on the grounds of their not having any disease directly attributable to War service, but whose War service has undermined their constitutions and made them susceptible to incapacitating diseases; and will he set up a committee of inquiry prepara-
tory to the initiation of legislative changes in the interests of these men and their dependants?

Mr. HAYES: The Imperial Pensions system has always recognised cases in which, while there is no disabality directly attributable to War service, the man is nevertheless suffering from a condition in which service can be shown to be the determining factor. My right hon. Friend has no evidence that further inquiry on the lines suggested is called for.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is not the fact that so many complaints have been made in this House evidence of the discontent that there is in this connection, and will my hon. Friend convey to the Minister of Pensions the need for some action in the matter?

Mr. HAYES: My hon. Friend's remarks will be conveyed to the Minister of Pensions.

Mr. LEES: How does my hon. Friend account for the fact that in a particular case, where a medical officer has said for many years that the individual concerned is suffering from the effects of the War, no pension is available?

Mr. HAYES: My right hon. Friend will, of course, take into account what the hon. Member has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — DYESTUFFS (IMPORT REGULATION) ACT.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 73.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is in a position to make any statement as to any future action with regard to the Dyestuffs (Import Regulation) Act; and, in view of the fact that the Act expires on 15th January, 1931, and in view of the feeling of insecurity in the industry, he will make an announcement of Government policy before the Autumn Session?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I endeavoured to make it clear last Thursday that, in view of the necessity for a careful examination of the position in the light of the report of the Dyestuffs Industry Development Committee, and for the further consultations which that body recommended, it would be
impossible for any announcement of Government policy to be made before Parliament reassembles.

Dr. DAVIES: Are we to understand that the Government will examine the report of this committee with an open mind?

Mr. GRAHAM: Oh, yes; that is exactly the object. I have had meetings with the Dyestuffs Development Committee, and that task is being overtaken.

Sir G. HAMILTON: May this trade hope that the Government, if they remain in office till the date in question, will not remove this protection from the trade?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is precisely what I cannot say at the present time. This review will proceed, and the Government's policy in the matter will be announced very soon after Parliament reassembles.

Dr. DAVIES: Does it not necessarily follow, if the Government have an open mind, that it is possible that the Act will not be allowed to lapse?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ARGENTINA (TRADE AGREEREENT).

Mr. MANDER: 74.
asked the President of the Board of Trade why the trade agreement between this country and the Argentine Republic is being held up?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The agreement is still awaiting ratification by the Argentine Senate.

Mr. MANDEB: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement was made by a member of the Canadian Government that it was being held up pending the result of the Canadian General Election; and what foundation is there for that statement?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir. I think that the reason is the one which I have already given to the House, namely, that there were certain constitutional questions following the General Election in the Argentine. I believe that to be the reason for the delay.

Mr. MANDER: There is no foundation for the other statement?

Mr. GRAHAM: To the best of my knowledge, no.

Captain CROOKSHANK: As there has been this long delay, would it not be better to hold the matter up pending the Imperial Conference?

Mr. GRAHAM: No; the Government still hope that this agreement will be ratified. There are very great advantages in it.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that a Conservative Government has been elected in Canada?

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (PROPRIETARY ARTICLES).

Mr. LONGDEN: 75.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can report any progress that has been made by the committee of inquiry into the proprietary trades' boycott of supplies of certain articles required by co-operative societies?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I presume that my hon. Friend has in mind the Committee which was appointed in March last to consider practices which result in with-holding supplies from particular retail traders or prevent re-sale except upon conditions. I would accordingly refer him to the reply which I gave yesterday to the question asked on this subject by the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville), of which I am sending him a copy.

SMOKED 'HADDOCK (IMPORT DUTY, FRANCE).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 76.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the French Government are proposing to increase the duty on smoked haddock to approximately 3s. per stone; that there is a considerable export to France of this class of fish from Grimsby and other British fishing ports; that this increase of duty will have a detrimental effect upon this trade; and will he, on behalf of His Majesty's Government and in the interests of British fishermen and workers in fish-curing establishments, make representations against this increased duty being levied?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have no reason to anticipate that the French Government
contemplate any increase in the import duty on smoked haddock from this country.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is such a proposal before the French Senate at present, and that is why I have put down the question, in the hope that he will make representations?

Mr. GRAHAM: There are certain proposals applicable to a general tariff, but I think it will be found that no difficulty under this head is likely to arise.

WAR MATERIAL (EXPORTS TO RUSSIA).

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: 77.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any licences for the export of arms or munitions of war consigned to Russia have been issued by the British Government since the resumption of diplomatic relations; and, if so, of what did the consignments consist and what was their value?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The only such licences issued have been those already referred to in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir W. de Frece) on 8th July, namely: one for 40 tanks and 20 light armoured vehicles, and another for the armament for two tanks and one light armoured vehicle. Information as to the value of these consignments is regarded as confidential.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Were they paid for in cash or did they come under the credits scheme?

Mr. GRAHAM: These were exports by a private firm, and I have no knowledge beyond that.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Sir GEORGE PENNY: 78.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet reached a decision regarding the publication of the report of the inquiry into the iron and steel industry?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: His Majesty's Government has decided to adhere to the decision which was given by the Prime Minister in this matter on 1st July.

Sir G. PENNY: Is it for political reasons that this report is being with-held?

Mr. GRAHAM: No. There is every reason why the reorganisation of this industry should be encouraged, and on that ground it was considered advisable not to publish the report.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE- LISTER: While it may be inadvisable to publish the report, why does not the right hon. Gentleman publish the recommendations?

Mr. GRAHAM: For the reason I gave the right hon. Gentleman during the debate, that any summary would convey a very misleading impression.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the reason that it discloses a complete condemnation of the Government policy?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, most emphatically that is not the reason.

Mr. MARLEY: Is it for political reasons that the other side want publication?

RUSSIAN CEREALS (IMPORTS).

Sir F. HALL: 79.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the quantity of wheat and other cereals imported into this country from Russia during the 12 months ended 30th June?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: During the 12 months ended 30th June, 1930, the following quantities of the various kinds of cereals imported into the United Kingdom were registered as consigned from Russia:—Wheat, 688,000 cwts.; barley, 1,789,000 cwts.; oats, 289,000 cwts; maize, 79,000 cwts.; rye, nil.

Sir F. HALL: Are any of these cereals either grown, gathered or otherwise handled by convict labour?

Mr. GRAHAM: I must ask for notice of that question. It is an entirely separate issue.

Sir F. HALL: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would mind inquiring during the Recess.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that all labour in Russia is convict labour?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON NAVAL TREATY (RATIFICATION).

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of
the Exchequer what the present position is with reference to the ratification of the London Naval Treaty in respect of the United Kingdom?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The instrument of ratification has been signed by the King and will be deposited simultaneously with His Majesty's ratifications in respect of the Dominions and of India and the ratifications of the United States and Japan when all parties to Part III of the Treaty are in a position to bring the Treaty into force in accordance with Article 24, paragraph 2.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS COVENANT (AMENDMENT).

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give a pledge that the Government will sign no treaty regarding any amendments to the Covenant of the League of Nations which may increase the commitments of this country without first laying their proposals before Parliament for approval?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the replies given by my right hon. Friend to questions on this subject on 21st May and 28th May, in which he stated that, if the proposed amendments were approved at the next meeting of the Assembly, this House would have an opportunity of debating them before ratification. To these replies I have nothing to add.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does that mean that the Government can come to a final decision at Geneva about these amendments without the approval of Parliament?

Mr. DALTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, having been my predecessor at the Foreign Office, that the process by which the League of Nations Covenant is amended is a long one and requires not only approval by the Assembly of a resolution in the first instance, but afterwards both the signature and the ratification of the signature of all members of the Council and of a majority of the members of the Assembly. No step will be taken binding this country
by ratification to support these amendments until the matter has been discussed in this House.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Owing to the very unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question on the Appropriation Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).

Mr. TOUT: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health whether he can state what action the Government propose to take in regard to the Rent Restrictions Acts?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Government have given careful consideration to this question. The last general inquiry into the working of the Acts was made in 1923, and the whole situation has been profoundly modified since that date by such factors as the operation of the Act passed in that year and by the additions made to the number of houses available. While, therefore, the Government are fully conscious of difficulties and hardships resulting from the existing Acts, they feel that before coming to any conclusion as to the course to be adopted it is necessary to have the whole field under the Acts fully examined by a strong Departmental Committee, and they propose to set up such a committee as soon as possible. Meanwhile they will propose to Parliament in due course to extend the existing Acts for another year by means of the Expiring Continuance Act.

Mr. TOUT: Does the Minister propose to take any action in regard to the present decontrolled working-class houses and the exorbitant rents which are being charged for them?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That will be a matter which will fall to be considered by the committee.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will it be within the purview of this committee to consider the reimposition of pre-War rents for those houses?

Mr. GREENWOOD: While the terms of reference have not definitely been settled, they will be of a very wide
character in order to enable the committee to go into the whole problem.

Sir BASIL PETO: Dees not the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, in fact, mean that there is no prospect of any amendment of the Rent Restrictions Acts during the lifetime of the present Government?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir.

Mr. ALPASS: Will this committee take into consideration the position of agricultural labourers as to how they are affected by farmers having the power to apply to county agricultural committees to get permission to evict them?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The terms of reference will be wide enough to cover that matter.

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Departmental Committee will sit during the Recess?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I hope that it will sit long before the Recess is over, and as soon after it has been appointed as possible.

Mr. McGOVERN: Will the Committee also apply to Scotland?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes, Sir, the terms of reference will be broad enough to cover the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. STEPHEN: And will there be Scottish representatives?

Mr. FOOT: Will the members of the Committee which is to be set up be confined to membership of this House, or will opinion outside he taken?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It will not be confined to Members of this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (CONFERENCE).

Mr. BROCKWAY: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the decision of the Government to limit the membership of the British delegation at the forthcoming Indian Conference to the members of the Government and nominees of the Conservative and Liberal parties.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before coming to a decision whether I shall allow the hon. Member to move the Motion for the Adjournment, I should like to say that I am under the impression that he gave me notice the other day that he was going to raise the question on the Appropriation Bill. Am I right or am I wrong?

Mr. BROCKWAY: Yes, Sir, I did give you such notice, but I thought that this was the more appropriate method of dealing with the particular issue. I had intended on the Appropriation Bill to discuss the wider issue.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I cannot consider a Motion for the Adjournment if the hon. Member had already decided beforehand to raise the question on the Appropriation Bill.

Mr. BROCKWAY: My intention was to raise the wider issue on the Appropriation Bill and not the restricted issue of this Motion.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had his chance in regard to a Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. MAXTON: Did not the discussion which took place here yesterday indicate that this was a matter of urgency and a matter upon which the opinion of the House should be tested? An opportunity is not available upon an Appropriation Bill, but is available on the Motion for the Adjournment. Does that not constitute urgency in this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: On the discussion which took place yesterday afternoon and which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), I only said that I could not give a decision upon the matter then because it was not allowed under the Standing Order. I said that I would consider it on its merits to-day and that it would not be prejudiced on the matter of urgency because it had to be put off a day. I was only going to consider that matter on its merits to-day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL,

"to enable schemes to be made for regulating the marketing of certain agricultural products by the producers thereof and for encouraging agricultural research and education; and to provide for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Dr. Addison; supported by Mr. W. Adamson, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Attlee, and Mr. Johnston; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 257.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

HOUSING (No. 2) BILL.

That they agree to the Amendment made by the Commons to the Housing (No. 2) Bill, in lieu of certain of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and to the Commons consequential Amendment to the Bill, without Amendment; they do not insist on certain of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose an Amendment in lieu of one of the said Amendments; they disagree to one of the Amendments made by the Commons in lieu of certain of their Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed, for which disagreement they assign their Reason.

LAND DRAINAGE (No. 2) BILL [Lords].

That they have agreed to certain of the Amendments made by the Commons to the Land Drainage Bill [Lords], without Amendment; to certain others to which they propose Amendments; they disagree to certain others but propose Amendments in lieu thereof, and to certain others, for which disagreement they assign their Reasons.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

That they do not insist on one of their Amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill to which the Commons have disagreed; they disagree to the Amendment made by the Commons to one of their Amendments, for which disagreement they assign their Reason.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (IMPROVEMENTS) BILL [Lords].

That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolutions, pursuant to the Commons Message of yesterday:

That the promoters of the Bill which has been introduced into this House in the present Session of Parliament, and which has passed this House and been sent to the House of Commons, shall have leave to introduce the same in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than Noon on the last sitting day of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon, up to that period, be paid:

That such Bill shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session:

That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro formâ, only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session; and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages:

That the Standing Orders by which Proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to the said Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.

LAND DRAINAGE (No. 2) BILL [Lords].

Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments, Lords Amendments in lieu of Commons Amendments disagreed to by the Lords, and Lords Reasons for disagreeing to Commons Amendments, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 258.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Third Report of the Select Committee brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVILEGE (SPEECH OF MEMSER).

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Report of the Committee of Privileges."
In rising to move the Motion which stands in my name, I must confess that the task with which I have been entrusted is one which I would gladly have been spared and one which, I think, is as distasteful as any task can be which is entrusted to a Member of this House. It must be distasteful to propose a Resolution which must, as its corollary, involve that you, Sir, shall censure a fellow Member, but, as a member of the Committee of Privileges, it is my duty to move that this House doth agree with the Report of the Committee. I propose to say that which I have to say in the fewest possible sentences. I shall, I hope, in saying what I am going to say, avoid any unnecessary bitterness. At the same time, I shall not seek to palliate or excuse the conduct of the hon. Member. That, I feel, he alone can do by taking the course that always has gained, and always, I hope, will gain, the respect of this House—but it is a course which involves courage. I shall ask this House to say that the recommendation of the Committee of Privileges is a recommendation best consistent with the honour and the dignity of this House. if we have erred in that Report we have erred, I think, on the side of leniency, but, in so erring, we have at least avoided the possibility of a crown of false martyrdom.
4.0 p.m.
The speech which was referred to the Committee of Privileges contained much that was grave. It contained two matters of outstanding gravity; the first, that Members of this House took bribes to help to pass doubtful Bills in the interests of private individuals, and the second, that the taking of such bribes was in keeping with the traditions of this House. I can imagine no graver charge. If the honour of Members is not kept untarnished and above even the suspicion of reasonable men, it is manifest that this House can never again perform any useful function, no matter what change may take place in its composition, its Rules or its Procedure. Unless we can assume the probity of
our fellow-members, debate becomes a mere mockery and politics a mere sham. For this reason, the Committee of Privileges concentrated their attention on this aspect of the case to the exclusion of the other matters, grave though those other matters undoubtedly were.
I should like at this stage, if I may, to explain to the House the view which the Committee of Privileges takes, and, I think, rightly takes, as to its functions. It is not designed to act as a committee of investigation. It manifestly could not undertake any investigation as efficiently as a tribunal properly constituted under the Act. Such a tribunal, which can be set up by a Resolution of both Houses, is commonly presided over by some distinguished Judge. It can enforce the attendance of witnesses, it can compel the production of documents, and witnesses who attend before it are given by Statute complete privileges and immunities. But the Statute provides that such a tribunal can only be set up to inquire into a definite matter. If there were grounds for supposing that certain specified Members had received bribes, notwithstanding the grave risk of hardship to men in public positions should the accusation be unfounded, I say that it would be better to court the most searching investigation, in the full light of day, into definite allegations before such a tribunal.
What, then, is the Committee of Privileges? I will explain that it is not a committee of investigation, It occupies rather the position of a grand jury. It has to see whether there is some prima facie case to be tried, whether there is some definite allegation to be inquired into. It does not, of course, require proof. That is a matter for the tribunal of investigation, but it does expect, and it is entitled to expect, that charges will be made against specific persons, with, at any rate, some rough degree of particularity. Had the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool (Mr. Sandham), as we fully anticipated, laid before the Committee any such charges, or any charge, which could properly be described as definite, so as to entitle this House to act upon the Statute, we should have felt it our duty to advise this House to set up such a
tribunal of investigation. What happened? The hon. Member came before us and repeated his charges in mere general terms, but declined to tell us who the Members were who received bribes to pass Bills. He declined to tell us by whom the bribes were paid or the circumstances or the occasions involved. When we told the hon. Member that we could not recommend setting up a tribunal of investigation unless we could say that there was some definite charge to inquire into, when we explained to him that our position was analogous to that of a grand jury, he still declined to particularise his charges. In the circumstances, it was manifest that we could not avail ourselves of the Statute, and that we should not be justified, even apart from this difficulty, in setting up a tribunal to investigate unspecified charges, which might turn out to be unfounded, upon mere idle gossip.
I should like to add this. I can hardly believe it possible that any Member of this House in a public speech can make charges such as these without first taking every step open to him to verify those charges. Either the hon. Member had or had not taken such steps before making his speech. If he had not, his conduct in making that speech is, I think, quite inexplicable. If, on the other hand, he had, then his conduct in declining to give us any particulars to enable us to recommend an inquiry to take place, is, I think, equally inexplicable. There remain but two things to say, first, that altogether apart from the truth or falsity of these charges, we have to consider the occasion on which they were made. If any Member feels confident that he has discovered facts—grave facts—such as these about one of his fellow-Members, and if, with a due sense of responsibility and in the public interest, he feels it duty to reveal those charges, he should do so openly and clearly, and from his place in this House. The hon. Member told the Committee of Privileges that he was unaware that there were any rules of Privilege. Be it so. The one satisfaction to be obtained from this whole melancholy business is that in future no Member can be in doubt upon that point. This House guards, and will guard its Privileges. It has ample power to restrain, and, if necessary, to punish those who disregard them. It is manifest that
the Committee could come to no other conclusion than that the hon. Member, apart altogether from the truth or falsity of those charges, was guilty of a grave breach of Privilege in regaling his constituents with these sensational allegations. [An HON. MEMBER: "He was not addressing them."] I do not mind whether he was addressing his constituents or not in making these allegations to a public meeting.

Mr. MAXTON: The allegations were made neither to his constituents nor to a public meeting, which seems to me to make all the difference, and I only rise to interrupt the Attorney-General because I do think that that is a matter of considerable moment.

Mr. TOOLE: May I say that a copy of that speech was sent to the Press before it was delivered?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do hope that all sections of the House will consider this very grave matter in a calm manner. The facts need no exaggeration on my part. If I am wrong in describing it as a public meeting, or as a meeting of his constituents, let me be corrected. The point, to my mind, remains exactly the same, and if grave charges of this sort are to be made, there is one place, and one place only, from which they should be made, and that is this House. Secondly, we feel that the statement that the taking of bribes was in keeping with the traditions of this House could not be passed over in silence. We felt it to be a gross libel upon this House as a whole. The hon. Member's ignorance of the rules of Privilege seems only to be equalled by his ignorance of the traditions of this House. I have finished what, as I have said, is to me a very distasteful task. I feel that the less that is said about this matter the better. I ask the House—I ask all sections of the House—to approach this matter in a, calm, judicial spirit, anxious, as they all must be, to uphold the traditions and the dignity of this great assembly.
Question. "That this House doth agree with the Report of the Committee of Privileges," put, and agreed to.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I beg to move,
That Mr. Sandham, the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Lancashire, has
committed a breach of the Privileges of this House by his speech, reported in the 'Manchester Guardian' newspaper of Monday, 28th July, 1930, and that he be admonished by Mr. Speaker for the breach of Privilege that he has committed.

Mr. MAXTON: I am somewhat at a loss to follow the procedure that is being adopted. I understand now that you have put the Motion that the Report of the Committee of Privileges be adopted. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is carried!"] I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is the Rule of the House that such a Motion must be put without debate?

Mr. SPEAKER: Any Motion of this kind, of course, can be debated, but I put the Question from the Chair "Ayes" and "Noes," and there was no response from the Noes when I gathered the voices.

Mr. MAXTON: This seems to be a most extraordinary thing on a Motion of this importance, when I certainly said "No," and when the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham), the person charged, was on his feet, and was not seen by you. I have never seen an occasion of this kind in this House where there was not a reasonable opportunity for the Member who was personally affected to make his own statement, and where there was not an opportunity to those who were in direct opposition to the proposal to cast their votes in the Division Lobby against it. I propose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now making a reflection on me. I think I am within the recollection of the hearing of the House. I put this Question. I said, "As many of that opinion say 'Aye'. "There was a response from the Ayes." The contrary, No." There was no response. After I have declared that the Ayes or Noes have it, it is no use Members raising their voices. The voices have been gathered, and the Question has been carried.

Mr. MAXTON: I am very sorry. It seems to me that that is not usually done in these cases, and I regret very much that in a matter of this importance to one man, he should have lost an opportunity simply because one did not—

Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. As one who has been to some extent concerned in this matter, I should
like to ask a question. Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham) will have full opportunity of discussing his conduct on this Motion? In submitting that point of Order may I, without any disrespect, say that it is extremely important that we should hear what the hon. Member has to say.

Mr. SPEAKER: I was going to ask the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) to proceed with his remarks.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: May I submit point of Order?

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Maxton.

Mr. MAXTON: I agree that the Attorney-General was performing a very disagreeable duty. I agree that he did it with very great skill and, if I may say so, with quite unnecessary bitterness and, if I may say so, in a tone that did not seem to coincide with his claim that it was an unprejudiced Committee that had gone into the matter. At the outset and right through this matter until now there has been evidence that a man making charges of this description need not expect an unprejudiced hearing from this Assembly—[Interruption]—nor from the representative body which it set up. My hon. Friend went to the Committee and was asked to produce evidence on the spot. Ho declined. He declined, having been advised in this matter by several of his colleagues, including myself. A right hon. Friend of mine who used to occupy a seat beside me on these benches got himself involved in a case of libel in the Courts. It took him seven months before the cause could be brought into Court. It took seven months' labour on the part of skilled counsel and solicitors. It took several thousands of pounds to bring the case into Court, and a week's operations in Court to arrive at an indecisive judgment on a matter very similar to the matters involved in our present proceedings.
My hon. Friend was expected yesterday, on about three hours' notice, to present a case, admittedly only a prima facie case, but a prima facie case involving the definite names of persons, naming the nature of the association: names that were going to be printed and published broadcast throughout Great Britain, with absolutely no assurance that, having done that and having made
these allegations, there would be any tribunal that was prepared to investigate them, before which he could bring his witnesses and afford those witnesses the protection which is absolutely necessary for witnesses in a matter of this description. My hon. Friend declined to do it. I would strongly commend his declining to do it, and I commend the same conduct to any other person involved in a similar type of public operation. I regret very much that, through my own laxity perhaps, I have been denied the opportunity of moving the Amendment that I proposed to move, that a judicial court of inquiry should be set up, that that should be the decision of this House, that my hon. Friend should bring forward his evidence and his witnesses, and that we might have the matter thoroughly examined.
It is true that this House as an instrument of government can only remain if it is clean and above board, honest and straightforward in its operations, and is composed of men whose character is beyond reproach and suspicion. It is the duty of Members of this House to use their efforts in that direction, to maintain the prestige of Parliament and the standard of conduct of Members of this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale in the beginning of this matter was telling the people who were responsible for sending Members to Parliament, for choosing Members for Parliament, for financing Members for Parliament, that they, in pursuance of their responsible duties, should choose men of character beyond suspicion. That was the privileged position in which he made his speech. Admittedly, it became a public speech and went beyond the bounds of its purpose, but he was addressing there men who had a certain responsibility and to whom he had a responsibility, and he was carrying out that responsibility in a fair and straightforward way. I say that he is not deserving of the censure of this House, and I certainly shall cast my vote against the Motion that has been moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: I desire to oppose the Motion that the censure of this House should be passed upon the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham). I do so on two grounds, first, because of
my own experience with the Committee of Privileges, and, secondly, the character of the Report which has been presented to the House. When this matter was under discussion, two or three days ago, I said in this House:
I wish to say to the House and to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have never, in public or in private, made charges of corruption against anybody, but there are charges in existence about which probably nothing would have been heard under ordinary conditions which become immediately relevant and overridingly important if a Member of this House is placed on trial, as it were, for saying that corruption does exist in the House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1930; col. 315, Vol. 242.]
That was a statement made in the full light of day. When the House of Commons decided that this matter Should go to the Committee of Privileges, I would remind the House that it had refused to have a Select Committee and that it declined to alter the composition of the Committee of Privileges in any way to make that Committee more acceptable than it appeared to be to the hon. Member for Kirkdale or his friends. In spite of that fact, I felt that it was my duty to go to that Committee. I expected, and I think that most hon. Members of this House expected, that I should he asked to go there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] When I received no notification from the Committee, I sent a letter, addressed to the Prime Minister, as Chairman of the Committee of Privileges:
I am left in some doubt by the terms of the Resolution adopted by the House of Commons yesterday whether the Committee of Privileges in dealing with Mr. Handham's speech at Manchester will confine itself to deciding whether that speech constituted a breach of the Privileges of this House, or whether it will investigate the assertion that corruption exists among, Members of the House of Commons. If it is the first with which the Committee will deal, I have nothing to say, hut if it is the second, I feel it to be my duty to inform you that I have information in my possession which if true supports directly the charge that corruption exists, although I ought to add that Labour Members are not implicated in this case. This information T shall be prepared to place before the Committee and to support it by oral evidence, provided that certain conditions are observed: (1) that any witnesses I may produce shall be given immunity, that is, shall he assured that they can speak freely, and (2) that the Committee has powers or will obtain powers to subpoena certain witnesses to be indicated by me and to compel the production of certain books and papers by the concern or
concerns which I may indicate. I shall be glad to hear from you on this matter at your convenience.
I did not write that letter without good reasons. I have received the following
reply, dated to-day
Dear Mr. Brown,
I have your letter of the 30th instant, informing me that you have in your possession information which if true supports directly the charge that corruption exists among other than Labour Members in the House of Commons. The Committee of Privileges cannot deal with such information, unless directed to do so by the House of Commons, as it is not a court of inquiry of that kind. If you have information in your possession you must produce it, and if you hand it to the Attorney-General he will no doubt advise me, as Leader of the House, as to what steps, if any, should be taken regarding it.
The anxiety to hear this information will be diminished at a later stage. The impression I was under when this matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges was that we were going to get an investigation into the substantial truth of the charges; that we were going to get an investigation into the substantial truth or otherwise of the charges made. I have read with great care the evidence tendered to this Committee, and I see that three specific charges are mentioned. The first is the charge regarding drunkenness; the second is a charge in relation to transactions said to have taken place in connection with the Money-lenders Bill, and the third is a charge that Members of this House have used House of Commons stationery to write puff letters in return for money. On the first charge I observe that the hon. Member for Kirkdale in his statement said that he was prepared to produce six witnesses; that is the charge of drunkenness. In regard to that charge, I observe that he was not asked who the witnesses were, that none of them, in fact, were called, and in his speech to-day, and in the report of the Committee of Privileges, that side of the charge is passed over completely. With regard to the second charge about the Moneylenders Bill, the hon. Member for Kirkdale made certain stipulations to the Committee. They read as follows:
My witnesses are poor men whose whole means of livelihood depend upon their names being kept absolutely secret. I shall also want to summon all necessary witnesses and necessary books and documents of the firms involved. I shall also want to
summon at least one member of the Committee of Privileges.
And then he concludes:
I trust that the Committee, which I am sure is anxious to probe this matter to the bottom, will grant me all necessary facilities.
The Attorney-General has told us to-day that the Committee of Privileges was not in a position to undertake this investigation, and, indeed, that is confirmed by the terms of the Prime Minister's letter to me. The kind of report I could imagine that Committee presenting to this House would be something like this:
We have had in front of us the hon. Member for Kirkdale, who has repeated the charges made elsewhere, and in regard to certain of them he has offered to produce witnesses, but we have not seen them. In regard to other charges, he said that he desired a judicial inquiry, and has promised, if that inquiry is forthcoming, to produce witnesses and documents, and so on. Therefore, we report these circumstances to the House and we ask the House of Commons whether it is prepared to set up the judicial inquiry asked for.
If that report had been forthcoming from the Committee, I should have regarded it as a fair report. I do not regard this document as a fair report. It seems to rue that its sole purpose is to see that the whole matter is closed with a censure upon the hon. Member for Kirkdale at She earliest possible moment. I wish now to make this statement on my own behalf. I have no kind of responsibility for the speech which the hon. Member for Kirk-dale made: and I would not have made it, but when the general issue of corruption is posed in this House I repeat what I said the other day, that I myself have certain evidence, and that I will take an opportunity of following the advice of the Attorney-General from these benches on the appropriate Estimate at as early a date as I can.

Mr. BROMLEY: I desire to claim the indulgence of my fellow Members of this House for a few minutes and I would preface my remarks by saying that I am speaking quite spontaneously and that I have no connection with the supporters of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham) or those who are so willing to howl down any appearance of reply from his side. I speak entirely as a Member of this House who is very proud and jealous of the position he holds as a Member of the House, and proud of its
honourable and lengthy traditions. Whether I remain a Member of the House after the next appeal to the country or not, I shall still for the rest of my life regard it as an assembly of gentlemen doing their best in the public service, open and above suspicion. Those are sentiments seldom echoed from these benches, but they are sentiments which the majority of us feel, although we may not be sufficiently courageous to express them except on occasions like this. The honour and integrity of this House are as dear to Members on this side as they are to any others. It is purely from that direction that I desire to claim the indulgence of the House for a few minutes.
While regretting very much the indiscretion of an hon. Member sitting on the same side of the House, and while regretting that he has made no previous provision for being called to task on account of it, I do say that all of us now should endeavour to the best of our ability, for the honour of ourselves as individuals and for the honour of this House, to try and get these charges investigated, and then remorselessly, if you like brutally, deal with the propounder of unproved charges or with those who would besmirch the honour of this ancient and honourable assembly. I know it is extremely difficult for you, Mr. Speaker, to give the House an opportunity of deciding in that direction, but I feel that if it was a calm and controlled vote very few of us would dare to vote against the fullest investigation of the charges made. It is difficult for you, Sir, to reopen the question, but if there is any way I respectfully and earnestly ask that it should be done.
May I appeal to my hon. Friends in the Labour party. However incorrect it may be, if it is believed by the people in the country who have supported us and sent us here that there has been the slightest burking of an investigation our honour is gone, and in the interests of the great movement, for which some of us have sacrificed over 30 years, and in the interests of the honour of this House, I appeal to hon. Members on this side to support my appeal that if it is possible within the Rules of Order the fullest and strictest examination should be made into these charges so that those who are not fearful of such an inquiry may be
cleared, and if there are any that are fearful, then let them be discovered so that the honour of hundreds of hon. Members may not be lost.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: May I just say this in order to avoid any possible misapprehension. I certainly, and I think a very large number of hon. Members in all parts of the House, agree with the sentiments which have just been expressed by the hon. Member for Bar-row-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley). The trouble the House has to face is this: we cannot avail ourselves of the statutory procedure under the Act of 1921 unless we have had definite charges made. Directly definite charges are made this Government will take an immediate opportunity of setting up a judicial inquiry to inquire into them.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I think we have reached a situation when hon. Members who make insinuations and charges should rise in their place in this House and make definite charges which can be met and inquired into. I challenge hon. Members to get up in their place and make their accusations in this House.

HON. MEMBERS: "Sandham"; "Brown."

Mr. McGOVERN: I am rather amused at the atmosphere of the House when the character and honour of an hon. Member is in question. I want to remind the House that whether they inquire further or not the names which have been suggested in connection with bribery will be mentioned in the Lobbies, and probably innocent men may he defamed. [Interruption].

Mr. SEXTON: Why do you not give us the names?

Mr. McGOVERN: I can assure the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton) that I have never heard his name mentioned.

Mr. SEXTON: Let us have the names now.

Mr. McGOVERN: A good deal has been said in the report and in the speeches in this House as to the breach of Privilege, but surely greater than a breach of Privilege is the question of the honour and honesty of hon. Members. In the interests of the innocent a judicial
inquiry ought to be set up and a full investigation made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of what"?] If the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham) has made statements that are untrue, and are proved to be untrue, then he ought to be asked by this House to apologise. I would like to know from the Attorney-General what the real procedure is in connection with the setting up of a judicial inquiry. [HON. MEMBERS: "He told you!"] One Speaker in the Chair is enough. I am rather keenly interested in this question, because I have striven for eight or nine months to get a judicial inquiry set up. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that it is necessary to put down specific charges. I have given specific charges, and given the names and given the amount of money they received and have been refused a judicial inquiry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In Glasgow. I made statements similar to the statements made by the hon. Member for Kirkdale. I made them in the Glasgow City Council. I was sent for by the Procurator-Fiscal in the city of Glasgow. He asked me and a colleague if we could produce the names and evidence regarding these persons. We gave the names, we gave, the amounts that they received, and we gave the period during which they received them, and the service for which they received them. What was the procedure? It was this; The Lord Advocate's assistant went to some of the people who had received the bribes and said: "Is it true that you received a certain amount of money?" They said "No." Then he replied, "There is no evidence."
This is an entirely new procedure for the legal machine to adopt. Are you going to adopt that method when a man is accused and charged with murder? Are you going to the murderer and say to him, "Did you commit the murder?" and if he replies "No," will you say, "There is no evidence to produce"? This statement by the Committee of Privileges is, in my estimation, a complete attempt to hush up and prevent inquiry being made, because it is well known, I am informed, on the: Front Bench of the Labour party, that an inquiry did take place in connection with the Moneylenders Bill as to bribes having been received. The names of the persons who were suspected were also mentioned to the Labour Party Executive. If that is
true, why is there the necessity of entirely preventing inquiry and hushing the matter up by simply making a scapegoat of the hon. Member for Kirkdale? You think that by bringing a Motion of Censure on the hon. Member for Kirk-dale you are going to clear your names in the eyes of the British public. It is an old and obvious dodge that cannot be carried out outside this House. I say here to hon. Members that if they are anxious, and if the Attorney-General is anxious, to discover whether or not there is evidence, he ought to set up his judicial inquiry, give protection to the witnesses, and allow them to produce their evidence and documents.
Suppose that the hon. Member for Kirkdale had conic before the Committee last night. Would the names of the witnesses have appeared in this report? Would their evidence have appeared in the report? Would it not be a deliberate attempt to strike and stab these men and drive them out of their employment? An obvious dodge of that description cannot be worked amongst honest and intelligent men. Surely it cannot be a crime to desire clean government. I remember the time when, from many miles distant, I heard Members on the Front Bench in this House challenging Members on the other side of the House with the possibility of corruption, and at that time the Labour party as a fact were in full cry that these Members should be placed in the dock. But to-day hon. Members are ready to line up behind the Front Bench and defend every and any action against—[Interruption.] I am not here to give allegiance to any man; I am here to fight the case of the working classes and the British public for clean government. I stand down to no man in my desire for clean government.
Suppose that we were to take this question with an unruffled temper and were to say, "Well, if there are men in this Rouse who are receiving bribes, surely if there are only a small number in the House, the great majority should say, 'Let us have the evidence.'" [Interruption.] I made a statement myself in demanding a judicial inquiry in Glasgow, and on a privileged occasion, when challenged inside the Labour Group meeting, I gave the names of the men, and I was threatened with three
actions for slander afterwards. You are asking that poor men's names should be mentioned—

Mr. SEXTON: On a point of Order. I want your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether we are to take our procedure from the City Council of Glasgow?

Mr. McGOVERN: If poor men are in question here, I suggest that in order to protect every man who is willing to give evidence of any kind an inquiry should be set up. I know that an inquiry cannot be set up unless at least there is a feeling amongst the Members of this House that they want a clearing of the characters of the great majority here. If it is true, as I stated previously, that if these men had come before the Committee of Privileges last night and had made their statements and given the amounts of money that were received, it would have come out in the report, these individuals would have been pursued for the rest of their lives. In the interests of those who are prepared to give witness I ask the House to demand the setting up of a full judicial inquiry to deal with the matter.

Mr. SANDHAM: My first duty in this matter is to my informers—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about your colleagues?"] I respect that duty, and if it be a question as to whether I have been treated with ridicule or ignominy, rather than let my informers,down—[Interruption.] Please do not worry, because I am not afraid of the ultimate result. Do not make any mistake about that. If my informers are wrong—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] What has it got to do with you? If my informers are wrong, I shall have been wrong. That up to the moment has not been settled—[Interruption.] I do not feel the touch of implication. Right is right, and truth is truth. I am only seeking for the truth, and as a consequence my first step is to protect my informers as far as I possibly can. What I do desire is the appropriate place for making statements with the protection for these people that I demand. I submit to the House this: If I had gone fully into the matter last night, what would have happened? There would have been the whole of the matter printed in the Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] What
is the good of hon. Members talking? One can only judge by results. The report is before the House with almost every word that transpired last night. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Why not? There is no reason "why not" as affecting myself. I am not concerned about that. My conscience is quite clear. All that I desire is that the truth shall be sought.
5.0 p.m.
I ask the whole of the Members of this House to seek for the truth for which I am seeking, irrespective of personal exposure, and irrespective of personal results. To say that it is necessary for me definitely to take the step of naming people in this House before I can get protection from the judicial tribunal that I desire, is asking too much from me, in. view of the fact that I have a duty towards my informers. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. I shall stand by these people in the way that I have done hitherto, and, if there is any blame meantime, I will take it like a man. The question whether the matter is to be investigated or not is one for this House to decide. If the House passes this Vote of Censure on me now, I want to ask the Members who vote for it to remember that there may be other conclusions arrived at later on, and to examine the possibilities of those conclusions here in the light of their own vote this afternoon. I have a perfect right to do that, and I do so and wait patiently for events.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I need hardly say that there is not a shadow of foundation for the insinuation which has been made in some of the recent speeches that there is a desire to shirk the full consequences of a judicial inquiry. We are all most anxious that it should take place, but, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, we cannot act upon general statements and general accusations. Under the Statute which enables the House to set up a tribunal of inquiry, there must be specific charges, and I want to say this to hon. Members on the back benches below the Gangway on this side that if they will now make a specific charge—and may I say in regard to one remark made by the hon. Member who has just sat down, that he is under no obligation to disclose the names of his informers—if he or any other Member will now make a specific charge, I will place upon the
Order Paper of the House to-day a Motion for the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry.

Mr. MAXTON: Obviously, my hon. Friend would be quite unwise, having decided to pursue the matter in another way and standing here under a Vote of Censure from this House, to carry the matter further in the way which the right hon. Gentleman suggests. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is an excuse!"] It is no excuse at all. I am perfectly certain that the Members who are shouting so loudly for publicity in this matter will be more than amply satisfied before it is finally disposed of.

Mr. W. J. BROWN rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Where is your courage now?

Mr. BROWN: I have more pluck than you have. I feel that some words are due from me following what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just said and because, whatever else I lack, I hope that courage is not one of the things which I lack, I propose to respond to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said. But I do not propose to respond—[Interruption.] I ask hon. Members not to make up their minds before they hear me. I have never known such an assembly in my life for not waiting for the end of the sentence. As a matter of fact, foreseeing that this very situation would arise this afternoon, I consulted Mr. Speaker before this afternoon's sitting with the object of ensuring that I should be able to participate in the Debate and also with the object of ensuring that I should be able to read correspondence which had passed between the Prime Minister and myself. You, Mr. Speaker, will confirm this. You were gravely doubtful—[Interruption.] If there is any doubt about this, Mr. Speaker will confirm me. You Sir, will confirm me when I say that you were in grave doubt as to how far you would be entitled to let me proceed on those paths, on the ground that when charges made by one Member were under discussion, it was not in order for another Member to get up and make other charges about somebody else. I am not responsible for the Rules of Order. That was the advice which I got from you, Sir, and I propose to abide by it, but I propose to say something else.

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope that the hon. Member will not implicate me in this matter. I told him that it was quite possible, if he adopted that line of argument, that I would have to call him to order. That was all I said. I could not possibly foresee the line which the debate would take and what would in the first instance appear to my mind to be out of order might not be out of order now.

Mr. BROWN: I am very much obliged to you, Sir, for what you have said, and you will perhaps allow me to complete what I was going to say. I was going to say that in any event I do not propose to make specific charges here this afternoon. I do not propose to do so for two reasons, both of which are good. One is that at the moment the House of Commons has not yet disposed of the charges of the hon. Member for Kirk-dale (Mr. Sandham). The second reason is that when I do make my statement, it will be made upon the Vote of the appropriate Department, with names mentioned, with amounts mentioned, with the individuals who paid over the money mentioned, and with a complete statement that will compel this House to make that investigation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not do it now?"] Because nobody knows better than some Members in this House that I cannot make this statement in its completeness and be in order on this occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Try!"] The longer I listen to the kind of thing that is going on at the present time, the more profoundly convinced I become that the hon. Member for Kirkdale was exceedingly wise in the line which he took. At any rate, the House of Commons this afternoon is not giving a very convincing demonstration of its desire to do the right thing. I leave it there, with the observation that in my time, in my way, on the occasion which I choose, and with the evidence which I will bring, I will make my statement.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I shall not detain the House for more than a minute or two, but I propose to give a vote this afternoon, and I do not want it to be a silent vote. I regret that I could not have given it on the Motion that was put first. I would gladly have done it then, because I want to say that in my opinion the line which the hon. Member for Kirk-dale (Mr. Sandham) took, was about the
only line which he could be expected to take in the circumstances. What has become perfectly clear in the course of this debate is that there are very few persons in this House this afternoon who really understand the procedure before the Committee of Privileges. There have been all kinds of explanations, but it is very clear that few hon. Members know the line which they would be expected to take, and it was very clear that, in the main, the hon. Member for Kirkdale had to decide what action he would take, I will not say altogether unguided, but not guided very clearly or, as it seems to me, with a specific amount of kindness or charity. I do not see what else he could have done in the circumstances. The charge which he made is on record.
May I say that no one regrets more than myself that this occasion has arisen. I certainly regret that the speech was made, and I say that in the hon. Member's presence. I would not have made the speech myself. I am a very old protagonist, but I can say that I have always held the House of Commons in a great amount of respect and on different occasions I have had to remonstrate—I think I can say with truth—with some individuals, who sit upon this side of the House now, upon their very vitriolic discussion of the House of Commons itself. I have heard Members who are sitting on this side denounce this House of Commons and every tradition it has got, holding it up to obloquy and ridicule on every possible occasion, and yet they become semi-paralysed the moment one of its functions is interfered with. It is an amazing exhibition of inconsistency. Let me say, in conclusion, that I have read a little bit of ancient history in my time, including Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," and I am now understanding more than I ever did before what must have been the feelings of some of those persons who were let loose in the arena when the pack got into full cry. There has been, this afternoon, an exhibition of almost primitive savagery. The hounds have been in full cry because of the speech which the hon. Member made. It does not do credit to any side of the House and, even now, there will be no inquiry and prayers will probably go up on high that no charges have been made.

Mr. SKELTON: I am sorry to delay the Division which the whole House clearly desires, but I could not give a vote in favour of this Motion without bringing before the House the matter as it appears to me in the light of the report which we have in our hands. If the vague general charges which were made by the hon. Member in a public speech had remained exactly, after the sitting of the Committee, as they were before, I think nobody on this side of the House would have had any difficulty in supporting the Motion made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But that is not quite the situation. The hon. Member said more to the Committee of Privileges than he said previously, and it is just that more which it appears to me has not received sufficient consideration, but requires full consideration, before we go to the very heavy measure of censuring a Member of this House.
What is that more? It is that with regard to the second charge a degree of specification is made by the hon. Member which he certainly did not make before. The Attorney-General says that before any tribunal can be set up specific charges must be made, and he interprets the word "specific" to mean that there must be a definite name. Is that necessary, and, if not, how does the new statement of the hon. Member stand with regard to specificness? That statement is that certain Members have received money from the Moneylenders' Association in consideration for services rendered during the passage of the Moneylenders Bill. Short of the actual mention of names, I can hardly imagine a statement more specific. I rise on account of that sentence, and it appears to me that this is not the time to pass a vote of censure upon the hon. Member. That time may arrive, but I do not think it has arrived now, and so far as I am concerned I could take no part in a Division which undertook to censure the hon. Member now. It appears to me that he has added some degree of specificness to what he said in public, and that he has added such a degree of specificness that it becomes a mere legal quibble for this House to say that no charge of sufficient specificness has been made to enable an inquiry to be made. It is true that no Member is mentioned, but the Bill is, and the alleged bribery,
and the persons who gave the alleged money are mentioned.
There is one way in which the House can be taken out of a very difficult situation, and that is that the hon. Member should now complete his specificness. If I seem to be patronising the hon. Member, it is not my intention, but he said he did not know the Rules of Privilege. Does he know that what is said in this House is privileged? Does he know that he has complete privilege against any possible danger for what may be said in this House? And, of course, he will not forget that if he has said something in error and without foundation the House will still have its opportunity when censuring a Member who says something of great importance in a rash mood, but this is not the time to censure the hon. Member. It is a time first and foremost for two alternatives. Either the hon. Member now should give the names, which I think would be far the preferable method, but not the only method, for this reason, that a degree of specificness has been attached to this charge which makes it necessary that a full investigation should be made. If we are not to have the assistance now of the hon. Member, these investigations should proceed independently, and until they are finished, the Motion against the hon. Member should be adjourned.

Mr. MORRIS: I think the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) has really placed too much importance upon one particular sentence in this report and has misunderstood the significance of that sentence. There are two things in issue. One, which must be important to the whole House, is the position of the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham) himself. There is also the issue, equally important, of the reputations and characters of those Members whose characters are challenged and charged, without their being named. When the Committee of Privileges is set up, it is its duty to find out whether a charge is made against any Member of this House in particular, and until a Member is named, no Committee of Inquiry can go into the charges, because no charges arc made against any individual. It would be very unfair to the Members of this House and to the taxpayers of this country to set up a roving inquiry in order to find out who is to be charged. It would be an unheard
of thing. Why should a Member of this House have to go to the trouble and expense of getting up his own defence to meet charges made by the hon. Member for Kirkdale? Why should every Member of this House—because that is the position—do so?
Any statement made in this House is completely and absolutely privileged. If anyone is under any suspicion, if there is any evidence that anyone has received money from moneylenders, let the charge be made here and now, but until the charge is made, the responsibility for the failure of investigation must rest upon those making yet not making the charge. Here is the opportunity. If there is any substance here, and if the hon. Member himself, as I believe, is, and all of us, we must assume, are, jealous of the dignity and the honour of this House and of the reputation of the whole of the Members of this House, here is an opportunity now for him, under the protection of a complete and absolute privilege, to say, without giving the names of his informants, "I make this charge, and I demand an inquiry into the conduct of Mr. So-and-so, or the hon. Member for So-and-so, because he has received money from moneylenders in order to pass the Moneylenders Bill."
Otherwise, what he is doing is to ask that he himself should be protected, but that no other Member of the House should be protected. He is demanding a privilege for himself which he is not prepared to extend to others. He asks for himself a privilege which he is not prepared to extend to the person whom he is going to charge. The person who is to be charged has his reputation at stake and is as much entitled to be protected as the hon. Member himself, and in protection of that Member, he should, having the opportunity of absolute privilege now, name that Member.

Mr. WISE: I want to draw the attention of the House to a point on which perhaps the House is under a misapprehension. The Attorney-General, in his opening speech, referred to the Tribunals of Inquiry Act and indicated, I think, that it was necessary, before a tribunal could be set up, that specific charges should be made and persons named. The last speaker took the same point. I have with me here a copy of the Tribunals of Inquiry Act, and there is
nothing in that, Act, as far as I can see, which deals with specific charges at all. The Act is very much wider in its operation, and it gives power, where it is resolved by both Houses of Parliament that it is expedient that a Committee should be set up, for inquiring into a definite matter described in the Resolution as of urgent public importance.
I submit to the House that the specific charge made, the definite statement made by two Members of this House, that they have evidence of very great importance and interest to every Member of this House, that they are prepared to lay that evidence on oath, with witnesses to be examined on oath by a judicial Committee set up by the House is a definite matter of urgent public importance. Whether or not the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sand-ham) gives the actual names of the persons implicated is a matter for him to decide, but he has definitely said that he is prepared to do it before a judicial inquiry under full protection. There is nothing to prevent this House, by Resolution this afternoon, setting up such an inquiry and giving him the possibility of doing that to-morrow, if the House desires to do so. The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown) is in the same position. But for the House now to pass a Resolution which avoids the possibility of such an inquiry would seem to me to be a public misfortune of the greatest importance.
With regard to whether or not the matter is definite, it is true that no names are at present given, and I think the hon. Member for Kirkdale is entitled to say that the whole of the facts should be produced at once, at one time, before a judicial tribunal, and not a portion of them, which would mean having the whole thing raised through the Press for several days. He is prepared to lay the whole matter before the Court of Inquiry immediately that court is appointed. The charge is specific. The cases are mentioned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he desired specific charges, and they are here in the Report of the Committee. What the hon. Member said was, "The specific charges I now make," and he went on to particularise, first, the chary of drunkenness, which seems, somehow
or other, to have been overlooked; secondly, that certain Members had received money from a specific organisation in connection with a specific Bill; and, thirdly, the use of the stationery of the House. I think it would be a great misfortune for the prestige and dignity of this House, and gravely unfair to many Members of the House, if the Government were not to take the opportunity, which I submit the Act affords, for setting up such a Committee. It is well within their powers, and I hope very strongly that they will make use of the powers which they possess, and which, I am convinced, both sides desire them to exercise, to set up a proper judicial Committee of Inquiry.

Mr. STEPHEN: I do not want to give a silent vote. The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) said that the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Sandham) was privileged, and therefore there was no reason why he should not give the names, but if he gives any name here to-day, the individual whom he does name will have to suffer conjecture and doubt until that Committee is set up, and it would not be fair to that individual to make this statement to-day. It has been said on several occasions to-day that no charges have been made and that there is nothing sufficiently definite. If there is nothing sufficiently definite, why all this bother and excitement If all this passion has arisen and all this excitement has been displayed, surely it makes it perfectly plain that the matter is sufficiently definite, as it stands at the present time, for setting up this Committee. I want to remind the House again that one may make definite statements naming individuals, but whenever these individuals are named, there are other people who may have been in association with them who may be put in a very difficult position. Everyone knows what makes bribery possible, but it is a very difficult thing to prove. It is in the same category as blackmail, where the courts hove always decided to allow names not to be disclosed, and immunity given to individuals in connection with things that have been done.

Mr. MORRIS: The hon. Member says that in cases of blackmail names are suppressed, but that applies to the name of the prosecutor.

Mr. STEPHEN: Yes, but it is very difficult in a question like this to say who is the prosecutor and who is the accused. Who is the accused here? [HON. MEMBERS: "All of us."] The question that I have asked has proved the point that I have been making, because hon. Members say "All of us." The hon. Member for Cardigan suggests by his question that the prosecutor in the case before us is the hon. Member for Kirkdale. The hon. Member agrees with me, and I put it to the House that the divergence of opinion that has been shown obviously proves the difficulties that there are in

this matter. The way out of it is not to condemn the hon. Member for Kirkdale, and the House will stand condemned unless a, committee of inquiry is set up.

Question put,
That Mr. Sandham, the hon. Member for Kirkdale Division of Lancashire. has committed a breach of the Privileges of this House by his speech, reported in the 'Manchester Guardian' newspaper of Monday, 28th July, 1930, and that he be admonished by Mr. Speaker for the breach of Privilege that he has committed.

The House divided: Ayes, 304; Noes, 13.

Division No. 483.]
AYES.
[5.34 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Colman, N. C. D.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Compton, Joseph
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Cowan, D. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Harris, Percy A.


Alpass, J. H.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Daggar, George
Haslam, Henry C.


Ammon, Charles George
Dalton, Hugh
Hayday, Arthur


Arnott, John
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hayes, John Henry


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Aske, Sir Robert
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Atkinson, C.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Day, Harry
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Herriotts, J.


Balniel, Lord
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Barnes, Alfred John
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hoffman, P. C.


Barr, James
Dukes, C.
Hollins, A.


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, Charles
Hopkin, Daniel


Bellamy, Albert
Ede, James Chuter
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Edge, Sir William
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Benson, G.
Edmunds, J. E.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Berry, Sir George
Egan, W. H.
Isaacs, George


Bird, Ernest Roy
Elmley, Viscount
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fermoy, Lord
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leit (Camborne)


Bowen, J. W.
Fielden, E. B.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Foot, Isaac
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Boyce, H. L.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kennedy, Thomas


Bracken, B.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Briscoe, Richard George
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lathan, G.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Brothers, M.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Susan


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James


Burgess, F. G.
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gill, T. H.
Leach, W.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Gillett, George M.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Calne, Derwent Hall-
Glassey, A. E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Cameron, A. G.
Gossling, A. G.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Gould, F.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Carver, Major W. H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Logan, David Gilbert


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Longbottom, A. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Granville, E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lowth, Thomas


Charleton, H. C.
Gray, Milner
Lunn, William


Chater, Daniel
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Christle, I. A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Church, Major A. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McElwee, A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
McEntee, V. L.


Clarke, J. S.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McKinlay, A.


Cluse, W. S.
Groves, Thomas E.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macquisten, F. A.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Price, M. P.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Mansfield, W.
Ramsbotham, H.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


March, S.
Raynes, W. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Marcus, M.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thurtle, Ernest


Markham, S. F.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tillett, Ben


Marshall, Fred
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tinker, John Joseph


Mathers, George
Ritson, J.
Tinne, J. A.


Matters, L. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Melville, Sir James
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Middleton, G.
Romeril, H. G.
Toole, Joseph


Millar, J. D.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Tout, W. J.


Milner, Major J.
Rowson, Guy
Townend, A. E.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Salmon, Major I.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Montague, Frederick
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Vaughan, D. J.


Morley, Ralph
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Viant, S. P.


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Sanders, W. S.
Walkden, A. G.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sawyer, G. F.
Walker, J.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Scurr, John
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Mort, D. L.
Sexton, James
Wallace, H. W.


Moses, J. J. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Sherwood, G. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Murnin, Hugh
Shield, George William
Wellock, Wilfred


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Shillaker, J. F.
West, F. R.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Shinwell, E.
Westwood, Joseph


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Oldfield, J. R.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, Dr J. H. (Llanelly)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Palin, John Henry
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Paling, Wilfrid
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Womersley, W. J.


Palmer, E. T.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Penny, Sir George
Snell, Harry
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Perry, S. F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip



Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sorensen, R.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Pole, Major D. G.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Charles Edwards.


Potts, John S.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.



NOES.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Cove, William G.
Stephen, Campbell


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Wallhead, Richard C.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Wise, E. F.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Lees, J.



Buchanan, G.
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Kinley and Mr. McGovern.


Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That Mr. Sandham, the hon. Member for Kirkdale Division of Lancashire, has committed a breach of the Privileges of this House by his speech, reported in the 'Manchester Guardian' newspaper of Monday, 28th July, 1930, and that he be admonished by Mr. Speaker for the breach of Privilege that he has committed.

Mr. SPEAKER then called upon Mr. SANDHAM by name and, Mr. SANDHAM standing up in. his place uncovered

Mr. SPEAKER: [sitting in the Chair covered]: Mr. Sandham, you have heard the Resolution to which the House has just come.
No more painful duty can fall upon the Speaker, with whom principally rests the guardianship of the Privileges of this House, than to have to admonish one of his fellow Members for having committed a breach of those Privileges.
The House has, by the Motion which it has passed., instructed me to admonish you for the speech which you delivered outside this House and which was reported in the "Manchester Guardian" of 28th July.
It must always be clearly understood that a Member cannot make public utterances outside this House derogatory to the House of Commons without committing a breach of Privilege, and being called to account by his fellow Members.
You have, moreover, brought charges against Members of this House of a very grave character. You have had an opportunity, first in the House itself, and then before the Committee of Privileges, of either specifying definite charges or withdrawing or apologising for the accusations, neither of which have you attempted to do. The Committee of Privileges have reported to the House,
after hearing what you had to say, that your speech, besides being a grave breach of Privilege, is a gross libel on the Members of this House.
It is clearly the duty of every Member to uphold the rights, the Privileges and the prestige of this House, and, above all, the honour of its Members. This you have not only failed to do, but you have gene out of your way publicly to degrade it and them in the eyes of your countrymen and of the world.
It now only remains that, in accordance with the commands of the House, I should admonish you, which I accordingly do.

Ordered
That the admonition delivered by Mr. Speaker be entered upon the Journals of this House."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

INDIA (CONFERENCE).

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I ask for the indulgence of the House while I refer for a few moments to a matter which was the subject of conversation at Question Time yesterday and of an appeal by me for a ruling on a point of order. No one can approach the discussion of any Indian question at this moment without a deep sense of responsibility, and without very keen apprehension of the difficulties which lie in front of us before we reach a solution of the problem of Indian government. Since the proposal for the creation of a Statutory Commission was made to the House, it has been our good fortune hitherto to act on non-party lines as a really national and representative assembly, and there is nothing that, my friends and I more earnestly desire to avoid than the introduction of any party differences in this great question, or the creation of unnecessary divisions of opinion or a vote. I consulted with my friends in the light of what passed yesterday as to what my action should be,
and in the efforts still to preserve that party union, although the Government have rejected the advice tendered to them on behalf of a majority of this House—[Interruption]—yes, tendered on behalf of a majority, for the Government are, in fact, in a minority. Although they rejected that advice, I had decided yesterday, with the concurrence and approval of my hon. Friends, that I would make no Motion, ask for no Division, and content myself with no further appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision. But this morning I received a letter which alters the situation, and which I ought to read to the House. It is addressed to me by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), who was the Chairman of the Statutory Commission.

"71, Addison Road, 30th July, 1930.

My dear Chamberlain,

I am grateful for the efforts you and others have been making to secure that I should serve on the Indian Conference. My deep interest in India, and the fact that I have spent so long in studying the Indian problem, would make an opportunity of doing so welcome to me if the Government had so wished, but the Prime Minister stated on Tuesday that there were very strong reasons which made it very undesirable that I should take part. It would, he said, be a profound mistake. He has to-day declared that after consultation with the Viceroy this is the fixed decision of the Government. It is manifest that the Government's view would equally apply to my serving, as my Liberal friends pressed me to do, as a party nominee.

Having taken up this position, the Government cannot withdraw from it without an outcry arising in certain quarters in India that the Conference is thereby prejudiced. I desire to do what I can to make the Conference a success, and I must therefore intervene now. I should not be acting in the public interest if I did not facilitate the decision which is announced. The unanimous report which the Commissioners, under my chairmanship, have signed discharges the heavy duty laid upon us by Parliament, and if the discharge of this duty is regarded as disqualifying us from taking any part in what the Prime Minister describes as a thorough threshing out of all the problems that arise, there is no course open to us but to acquiesce.

Of course, it will be difficult for the report to receive fair or adequate treatment in a Conference which includes no one who can either expound our recommendations with authority or explain on behalf of the Commission the considerations or the evidence which must be weighed before criticism of the report can be regarded as well-founded. But I can well understand that by this
arrangement it is hoped to attract some Indian elements which otherwise might be unwilling to come. In any case, the last thing to which I will consent is to be the subject of a wrangle. If the Conference succeeds, no one will be better pleased than I. If it fails, no one shall say that I contributed to its failure. In either event, the opportunity will still remain even for the Commissioners to take part in the discussions which must follow.

Yours very truly, (Sgd.) JOHN SIMON."

I should think it an impertinence to say anything about that letter, except that it is inspired and written in the spirit which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has shown throughout since he accepted the heavy task to which Parliament and the Sovereign called him. Obviously, in the circumstances, I can make no further appeal to the Government to reconsider their decision. I desire, as we all do, the success of this Conference. My friends have accepted the invitation of the Government to be represented in the Conference, and we shall not withdraw our acceptance because the Government have refused in this matter to follow our advice. The decision which has been taken, grave as I think it may not improbably prove to be, is the decision of the Government, and the whole responsibility for whatever consequences follow must be accepted by them.

It is necessary, I think, to add a few words more, in these circumstances and with this interdict placed by the Government upon the presence of any of the Commissioners in that Conference. What was this Commission? It was not like most Commissions, a mere act of the Sovereign upon the advice of the Executive of the day; it was a Commission for which provision had been made and order taken by the very Act of Parliament which established the present constitution of India's Government. It was desired to advance the time at which the Commission should undertake its labours, and, accordingly, a second Act of Parliament passed through both Houses to facilitate the immediate creation of the Commission, and while that Bill was passing through Parliament the names of the Commissioners were given to the two Houses, and were accepted nemine contradicente as a proper representation of Parliament by the Members of both Houses. For more
than two years, subordinating all other interests and all other occupations to the task with which they had been charged, these Commissioners devoted themselves to the study of the problem, to the formulation of the results of their inquiry and to the preparation and presentation of the advice which they tendered to Parliament.

6.0 p.m.

There is no body of men in public life who have so complete or up-to-date knowledge of Indian circumstances and Indian conditions, patiently and impartially acquired. There is in our whole Indian history no document to compare with the Report of the Statutory Commission for its completeness, for its care, for the accuracy of its presentation of facts, and for the closely reasoned and knit framework of its conclusions. It is a remarkable thing that, having been drawn from all parties, and carrying out an inquiry so complicated and so difficult, the Commissioners were able to make a report which is unanimous. How did the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister speak of this Report yesterday? What are the generous words of recognition which he thought appropriate to such conspicuous and devoted service, placed so ungrudgingly at the disposal of this House?
The Statutory Commission has performed its task with a distinction which will secure for its report a permanent place in our official political literature."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1930; col. 496, Vol. 242.]
The right hon. Gentleman may dismiss. the Commission to the bookshelves on which he keeps his own speeches, but he will not be able to dismiss the report. That report cannot be laid aside as the Commissioners have been laid aside all the more because the Commissioners are not represented, and there is no one to help to guide the Conference which must refer again and again to the report of the Statutory Commission. At every point the Conference must teat the proposals which come before them by the conclusions that have been submitted for their consideration. They must refer to the report, and any other proposals which they put forward must be judged by the test which they apply, and by the conclusions which they have submitted for our consideration. I think the
decision of the Government ill serves this House and the. Conference itself.

In the absence of anyone who can give the reasons for any statement made in the report, if it is challenged, or the proof of any facts which are queried, who can tell us, when some other proposal is made, whether the Commissioners ever heard of that proposal, and if they did hear of it, who can tell us for what reason it is not in their report? If Changes are proposed in the report, who can call our attention to the effect that the change will have upon the rest of the scheme and tell us why the Commissioners, in considering this change, thought it was better not to make it? The absence of anyone on the Conference who can give that information makes the task of that Conference infinitely harder. It is no use arguing that the services of a secretary or a clerk or even a stenographer can be utilised to explain what is wanted or explain why the Commission came to that decision. This will make the work of the Conference much harder, and it will certainly detract from the authority which that Conference can have in this House. It will also detract from the responsibility and authority of any proposals which the Government may make after the Conference when they are brought to this House in due course, and referred to the Joint Committee, when we may look forward again to the services of our Commissioners of which we have been deprived by His Majesty's Government.

Major GRAHAM POLE: I do not propose to say very much on this subject because, in my opinion, the less that is said on the subject of India and the Round Table Conference at the present time, the better. I wish to refer to a discussion which took place in another place where several grave inaccuracies were put forward by a Noble Lord. We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) that the Government will explain by means of a secretary or stenographer what the Statutory Commission think, but, if their own representative in another place and their own report cannot explain that matter, no one else is likely to explain it. To say that the report gives us an up-to-date knowledge of Indian
conditions and circumstances is simply foolish. The report of the Commission states that they have not taken into consideration the events of the past few months. It is over a year since the Commission left India and therefore the report they have issued cannot have taken into consideration anything that has happened in that time during which the whole situation has changed. Consequently, to that extent, the report is out of date.
One of the criticisms which has been made in India with regard to the report of the Simon Commission is that there is too much insistence on points of difference, and too little insistence on points of unanimity. We have been told of the large number of different religions in India, but we must not forget that there is a large number of different religions in this country. There are 320,000,000 people in India, and 285,500,000 of them are either Hindus or Moslems. Quite a number of different languages and dialects are spoken in India, but the point to be stressed is that there are at least 100,000,000 people in India who speak Hindi and 50,000,000 who speak Bengali. We want to make the roundtable conference a success, and one would have thought that this would have appealed especially to hon. Members opposite, because, if we do not make it a success, we are going to lose all our trade with India. A day or two ago the Simla correspondent of the "Times" said:
On the other hand, there is a disturbing increase in the movement to boycott British goods, which is spreading to an alarming extent throughout the country.
That kind of thing is bound to go on until some settlement is arrived at which satisfies the Indian people. The Simla correspondent of the "Morning Post" states, in that journal, on the 11th July:
The total of cotton goods imported from England during April and May, compared with the total for the corresponding period last year, showed a decrease of 23½ per cent.
No wonder that there is unemployment in Lancashire. The Simla correspondent of the "Morning Post" goes on to say:
Foreign cloth shops in most of the larger towns have been continuously picketed, and it has been difficult for importers even to honour contracts made with Lancashire before the outbreak of the movement.
Only the other day the "Morning Post" pointed out that
India normally takes about one-third of Lancashire's production of cotton goods. At the present moment scores of spinning mills and weaving sheds in the county have been closed, and there is no hope of re-opening them until active trade is resumed with India.
Whether we like it or not, there is a danger of creating in India the impression that the Government are going back on the agreement which has been announced to India and that the Round Table Conference might be dominated by members of the Statutory Commission.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How do you know that?

Major POLE: I know that it is so, because I am constantly receiving a large number of letters and cables from India which lead me to that conclusion. There was great difficulty in getting the Indian representatives to agree to come to this country, and it is very difficult to get them to co-operate with us, because they do not believe in the sincerity of a three-party Conference. Recently we have seen some signs of an active attempt at co-operation which I hope we shall really help and not hinder. There is a feeling among the Indian people that we are inclined to depart from our undertakings, and that we are going to limit the scope of the Conference. In another place, it was said the other day by a member of the Commission:
That Sir John Simon's letter was exclusively confined to adjusting the relations between British India and the Indian States.
The Chairman of the Commission and the Prime Minister realised that it was necessary to deal with the whole problem of the Indian States and British India and the Constitution and not merely to adjust our relations with the Princes. I hope nothing will be said in this debate that will make it more difficult for us to get Indian representatives to attend the round-table Conference. We want the Indian people to realise that they are coming to a free conference and that they are not dominated by one report and one report only. They should understand that anything which they wish to lay before the Conference will be sympathetically examined, and that they will
have a chance of presenting their own views before a scheme is adopted for all sections in India. I want to ensure that the Indian representatives will get a fair hearing for their suggestions and that they should be convinced that there is no intention of putting one point of view before them the whole time.

Mr. BROCKWAY: It would be out of place for me to express the feeling, which, however, I am certain is general in the House, of the very deepest appreciation of the letter from the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) which was read here this afternoon, but, because of my interest in India, I cannot fail to say on my own behalf a word of gratitude, not only for the decision in that letter, but for the temper in which it was written. From the very beginning of the Simon Commission, I have differed from the method of its appointment, its procedure, and, finally, its report; but never, during the whole of the proceedings of that Commission, have I withheld appreciation of the conscientious, and, if I may use the word, distinguished services which the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley and his colleagues were rendering. They have, in preparing that report, faced very great difficulties—difficulties, sometimes, of a personal nature; and, if one has criticised their recommendations, I think that the frankest possible acknowledgment ought to be made of the service which they have rendered in preparing that report. I do not say that because I wish to criticise; I say it sincerely, because of the great public action which the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley has taken on this particular occasion.
May I add to that, and I add it with reluctance in view of that action, that I think the Government have been absolutely right in the decision which they have taken in this matter? Rightly or wrongly, the politically alert mind of India has come to regard the Commission, and has come to regard its report, as absolutely obstructing the way to any settlement of the Indian question, and, as the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley himself recognises, the mere fact of his membership of that Commission would have deterred the kind of representation which it is absolutely necessary to have at the round-table Con-
ference, if that round-table Conference is going to be representative, and if it is going to be effective in its results.
I wanted, however, this afternoon, to deal not merely with that matter but with rather wider matters relating to the present Indian situation. Perhaps I may repeat what I have said before in debates on India in this House, namely, that there is no one who recognises the difficulties which have faced both the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India, more than I do; and I not only recognise those difficulties, but I recognise the spirit in which the Viceroy and the Secretary of State for India have faced them. I would put this point. The fact that you had a Viceroy, and the fact that you had a Secretary of State for India in this country, who have been animated wholeheartedly by sympathy towards the Indian people, and yet, nevertheless, that you have had the results which are now occurring in India, shows that more than that good will and more than that spirit were required—that a great change of policy was required, and action much more courageous and much more comprehensive than has been followed.
Nine months ago, when this issue of India was raised from these benches, a settlement with the representatives of India was comparatively easy. To-day it is still possible, and I hope I am not going to say a word in the debate which will make that settlement more difficult. But in six months' time, if the possibilities of settlement which now exist are not accepted, a settlement will almost become impossible. Why do I say that nine months ago a settlement was comparatively easy? I say so for this reason, that, if certain things had been done to which the Labour party and the Labour Government are pledged, the civil disobedience campaign of this year would never have occurred, and we should now have been looking forward to a roundtable conference which would have been attended by representative Indians, including Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Motial Nehru, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, and Mr. Malaviya, four men who represent Indian opinion to-day more than any other four men whom you could select in India. We should have been approaching a roundtable conference to which these men would have come confidently, hopefully, in a
spirit of agreement, seeking a solution of the problem that now divides India and this country.
Nine months ago it was only necessary for our Government to say that the object of the round-table Conference would be to secure full responsible Government for India, and that that round-table Conference should work out an agreed basis for the transition period between British domination and full Indian self-government. That was the first essential thing, and, because it was not done nine months ago, we have the present situation in India. The second essential thing was this. There were laws in India which were resulting in the continued imprisonment of Indian leaders who, by speech and by writing, were criticising the administration of India. In addition to the arrests and imprisonments which were taking place under those laws, there were prisoners in Indian gaols of a political kind who had been there for many years. If, nine months ago, the Government had been able to follow the kind of declaration which I had suggested by an amnesty to political offenders, to those who had not been guilty of violence, who had not been guilty of incitement to violence, but whose offence was entirely of a political character, namely, criticism of the administration of the time, you would have created in India an atmosphere which, again, would have made a round-table Conference successful.
Thirdly, it was essential at that time that India should have confidence regarding Indian representation at the Round-Table Conference. There cannot be the least doubt, on the part of anyone with a knowledge of the conditions in India, that the Indian, National Congress is expressing the vast majority of what I. would call politically, alert opinion in India, and, therefore, it was desirable that there should be adequate representation of the point of view of that Congress when the Round-Table Conference took place. I say quite emphatically, knowing the conditions about which I am speaking, that, if these three things had been done nine months ago, we should now have been approaching the Round-Table Conference with full Indian co-operation, and with full reason for hoping that there would be, as a result of that
Conference, a settlement which would not only be acceptable in this country, but which would be acceptable in India and which would be operative in India. Unfortunately, those things were not done, and, because they were not done, the civil disobedience campaign began, and we now have to look upon a situation in India which has been enormously aggravated as a result of the clash and the conflict that has occurred.
About the present civil disobedience campaign in India, I want first to say that Parliament will make a very great mistake if it considers that that civil disobedience campaign is not one of very formidable proportions. When it began, the march of Mr. Gandhi to the coast was ridiculed. That is because of the difference between the Indian temperament and the British temperament. In Great Britain, if a campaign is begun, it is begun in a spectacular way. It is begun with a view to getting the greatest impression at once; it is begun simultaneously. Those who are organising it realise that publicity and initial impression will be largely responsible for its success or its failure. Mr. Gandhi began on exactly the opposite basis. He was desirous that his campaign should be carried out in a spirit of non-violence, and he, therefore, chose a small group of his own followers, from his own ashram, to make a beginning—men upon whom he could rely—but, although the beginning was made in that way, it soon became necessary to change the attitude of ridicule with which that march and that campaign was met.
Secondly, the attitude was followed, and I remember that it was the attitude in this House, that the disturbances were only sporadic, that they had occurred in a few cities, that they did not represent any great mass movement of the people in India. I pointed out at that time that if, in Europe, disturbances had occurred in London, in Paris, in Berlin, in Rome and in Vienna, one might say that they were sporadic, but it would be perfectly clear that there was a movement spreading all over Europe of which they were a part. I do not believe, and I am perfectly sure that it is not the view of the Secretary of State for India, that anyone with a knowledge of opinion in India now
doubts the formidable character of the civil disobedience movement there. To that general statement I want to add. this, that it has become clearer and clearer as that movement develops that the distinctions which are drawn between religious communities in India are rapidly ceasing to be of account. I know that there are leaders of the Moslem community; I know that there are leaders of the Hindu community, leaders of the Sikh community, leaders of the Parsi community; but a fact which is very frequently overlooked is that, while the men in India who obtain recognition as leaders of particular communities are those who emphasise the sectarian point of view of those communities, there are within those communities men of just as great influence over the masses of those communities themselves, who, because they are thinking in terms of the interest of India as a whole rather than of their own particular community, are not regarded as religious leaders.
Whatever may be said of leaders, it is becoming increasingly true, and it has been specially represented in the great city of Bombay, that, within the mass movement of the civil disobedience campaign, the Moslems, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Jains, the Parsis are all being drawn, because a greater issue than religious difference has now arisen, the great national issue of India in which they are all so much concerned. When one sees in Bombay day after day, first a procession of Hindus, then a procession of Moslems, then a procession of Parsis, one sees how the Indian national movement is uniting those differences which used to exist between the religious communities.
I want especially, as a Member of the Labour party, to draw attention to the policy to which this very formidable movement of resistance has led the Government to resort. The Secretary of State, more than any other man, has stood for personal liberty and for racial liberty. Before I was in the House I read again and again with admiration the manner in which he urged a settlement of the Irish question, in which he urged that repression would not succeed, and in which he again and again opposed the aggressive measures that were taken. I am not saying that in bitterness. I believe that faith in liberty is still his. I am saying it because I
want to contrast the results which inevitably have occurred in India because of the policy the Government have pursued. It has suppressed the Indian Press. They insisted upon deposits, which have led to the closing of one Indian paper after another. That policy has been futile. In Bombay the Congress has been able to publish by cyclo-style day after day its bulletins, which have Lad a much greater circulation than any ordinary newspaper, would have had. The Government have arrested the editor one week, only for another editor to be appointed the following week. They have confiscated the cyclo-styles and duplicators one week only for others to be used another week. Sometimes a circulation of 100,000 copies has been obtained for the bulletin. They have reached me week by week. It is absolutely impossible by your Press laws effectively to suppress the expression of public opinion when there is that determination among large masses of opinion that their views shall be expressed.
I take another instance of the method of repression. In this country the Labour party and the trade union movement have stood up strongly for the right of picketing, but in India, when the right to picket is urged in a national form, an ordinance is issued giving power to prohibit it and day after day, week after week, men and women are being arrested for picketing the liquor shops, not on the ground of violence, but merely on the issue of picketing. I could take the fact that even wearing apparel, like the Ghandi cap, has been repressed. I could take a hundred things of that character, but I want to take more particularly the situation that has arisen because the Government have been prohibiting the processions and demonstrations. I want, as an instance of that, to take what occurred on the esplanade of the City of Bombay, where a demonstration was prohibited of unarmed Indians, of Indians who were vowed to the method of non-violence, who were specially chosen because of their capacity for self-restraint when faced by violence. When that demonstration was prohibited, men and women marched to the esplanade. They were ridden down by armed police, and 500 were injured. The ranks formed and re-formed. They were charged and,
when the blows fell upon them, the men kept their hands at their sides and refused to respond to any of the blows that were struck. Particularly, when a small group of Sikhs were attacked in that way, 20 women formed a cordon about them and the blows from the police fell upon the women as well as upon the men. I admit that an appeal was made to the women to withdraw, but they asserted that they were prepared to receive the blows equally with the men. I will read the report that appeared in the "Daily Telegraph":
Some messages may describe yesterday's affair as a battle. It can in no way be thus named. Rather it was a terrible test of strength between the indomitable spirit of non-violence, determined to defy the law, and 500 native lathi armed police, some of them mounted, charged with the painful task of clearing from the Maidan these would-be martyrs.
I am perfectly sure that that kind of action is repulsive to the Secretary of State. It is repulsive to us all. It is the inevitable result of the kind of policy that has been pursued, and unless there is a change in that kind of policy, there may be repetitions of those scenes.
I also want to draw attention to the very serious effect of the strength of the Indian civil disobedience movement upon the trade of our own country. 42 per cent. of the workers in the Lancashire textile industry are now unemployed. In the two months of April and May, at the very beginning of the campaign, the imports of cotton goods to India fell by 23½ per cent. During the three months ending June, the Customs revenue of the Indian Government fell by £795,000, and it is clear that these figures, grave as they are, represent only the beginning of a boycott which will become graver and graver in its effects. If it is said that the boycott will strike India as well as Britain, my answer would be that, when the Netherlands were threatened with occupation by an alien Power, they voluntarily laid their land under water in order that they might more effectively resist that Power. I am sure the spirit of India is such, not merely among the workers, but even among the employers, that they will be prepared to suffer trade loss, if trade loss is necessary, rather than call off this boycott before the basis of some agreement is reached.
I have emphasised the seriousness of the present position. I want very seriously, and choosing my words very carefully, to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman steps that may still be taken in order to secure a settlement of this difference between Great Britain and India. The Government announced this week that the representatives at the round-table Conference will include nominees of the Conservative and Liberal parties, and the Prime Minister was very careful to declare that the Government would retain the right to declare the Government policy. I want to put this point to my right hon. Friend. There can be no doubt whatever what the pledged policy of the Labour party is. There can be no doubt whatever of the expectation of the pronouncements of the Prime Minister himself. We are absolutely pledged to give India self-government. Almost exactly two years ago the Prime Minister, addressing a Labour Conference, expressed the hope that within a few months—not years—India would have full Dominion status. I want to put this point in all sincerity to the right hon. Gentleman, that the fact that the Conservative and Liberal parties are going to be represented at this Conference frees him, and frees the Government, to make a definite declaration of Government policy on the lines of the declared policy of the Labour party, both in its annual conferences and in the hopes that have been held forth by the Prime Minister himself. If it were made clear to the Indian people that, whatever the attitude of the Conservative or the Liberal party, the Labour party stands by the declaration of its right of self-government for India, you would have taken the first step to break down the difficulty which now prevents Indian representation at the coming round-table Conference.
Secondly, I want to urge again that, if you are to have an atmosphere of good will in India, where alone a settlement can be reached, you must have, prior to your round-table Conference, an amnesty for political offenders. A year ago they numbered 1,000, 1,200 or 1,500, to-day at the lowest estimate they number 5,000. The representatives of India who can speak with the greatest authority for India are in Indian prisons. They are wanted at the round-table Con-
ference. Can it be expected that they will come and leave their comrades and their colleagues in the prisons from which they have been brought forth? I say again that, if you are to have the conditions of a successful round-table Conference, you must carry out that amnesty in order to get the atmosphere in India in which that round-table Conference may be successful. Thirdly, it has become clear during the last few months, whatever was the situation before, that the Indian National Congress represents a vast mass of the politically-minded people, that the masses of India, are now behind that, Conference—[Interruption]. I will not delay my argument, because I have spoken long enough already. [An HON. MEMBER: "Very long."] If I have spoken long, it is because I am very keenly interested in India. It is because it was the land of my birth and, next to this country, I love its people more than any people on earth. It is because my family have long been there, and are still there. It is because I know many of these men in prison as my personal friends, and it is for one reason more than any other, that I desire a settlement of this issue without the situation getting worse and worse, without more repression, more revolt and more bloodshed, and I see those tragic possibilities unless changes of policy take place.
The third point that I was urging when I was interrupted is that it is necessary that at that round-table Conference there should be adequate representation of the Indian National Congress, which now clearly speaks for the vast majority of the politically-minded people of India. If those three things are done, even now, late as it is, it is possible that the roundtable Conference may reach a solution, but, unless those three things are done, my great fear is that the situation may get worse and worse, the repression may become greater, and the whole tendency will be for all those conditions which can bring about a settlement to be destroyed. With the greatest earnestness I can possibly command, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to pursue a policy which will enable the round-table Conference to be successful.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: The very eloquent young gentleman who has just sat down—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order—

Sir C. OMAN: I wish to correct myself. The very eloquent young Member of this House who has just sat down—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) to refer to the hon. Member sitting behind me as "young gentleman"

Mr. SPEAKER: I wish someone would address me as "young gentleman."

Sir C. OMAN: I beg the hon. Member's pardon for having called him a young gentleman. I should have said the "young Member of this House." He says that he was born in India. So was I. So was my father and so was my grandson. I think that I know as much about India as he does. While listening to that speech that feeling was being borne into me more and more until there came the final paragraph, when he called the weapon which is used not only by the police but by many other less authorised persons in India, the lathi. The "lathiarmed" police he called them. For one who has been in India the hon. Member gave such extraordinary mispronunciations of common words that I think he must have been a very long time absent from India, or had a very short stay in India as a child. But that is a point upon which I shall not detain the House. I shall only speak for 10 minutes. The point I wish to make is that the Government defended by the hon. Gentleman opposite have, as I understand, refused to allow the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) to be at the round table Conference as one of the regular participating parties at that meeting. The reason given is that it will be offensive to many of the Indian representatives. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley has prepared the most wonderful book on India that ever was written. Nobody honestly can say that it was not a wonderful book, and that it does not contain facts and facts and facts. The reason for excluding the right hon. and learned Member from the round table Conference is, apparently, to be that he is not persona grata with some of those Indians who may be invited to that meeting. I cannot imagine
any more intolerable reason being given. Because the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley knows more about India than anyone because he has just produced an important work about the present condition of India and because he is thoroughly versed in all problems of Indian government he has to be excluded if you please from the meeting. He may be called upon, and his report no doubt, it is said, will form part of the State archives of Britain. That is to say the report will go into the pigeon hole and the author will be boycotted. I cannot imagine any more trivial declaration of a Government or any more shocking defence of that action than that which I have heard this afternoon.
The next point is that the hon. Member who spoke so eloquently has been talking of India, India, India. He is as well aware as I am that there is not one India but fifty Indias, fifty nations, more than a hundred tongues. There is no nation of India. The thing that he calls India is, as he ingenuously put it on severl occasions, merely a majority of the Congress Wallahs who "represent the more active form of the Indian 'Intelligentsia," which is politically minded." That is to say, perhaps 3 per cent. of the whole country. To call 3 per cent. of the whole country India I must confess vexes me, particularly when I remember that to a, large extent that 3 per cent. is composed of failed Calcutta B.A.'s, the unemployed vakils, and the other "politically mined" people who hope, when the British Raj disappears, to take the place of the present governing body. It is a case of ôtez-vous de là que je m'y place —I want your job. That is largely the explanation of the Congress agitation.
I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman who spoke for his daring statement that "Communal estrangement," that is, religious bitterness, is rapidly dying down in India, and is at the present moment showing signs of vanishing. The reason given for that was that some Mohammedans took part in one procession in Bombay with some other people. But by far the worst religious riots seen for years have been the recent Dacca riots, absolutely bitter communal fighting which has taken place for many days during the last few weeks; they were the worst that had been seen in India since the
still greater riots between Hindus and Mohammedans in the Arrah district some 10 years ago. Therefore, far from it being the case that communal bitterness is dying down, there is not the least doubt that the very worst riots which had been seen in India for years took place this very month. There is no doubt about it. What is the use of making fine harangues about feeling dying down when Mohammedans are killing scores of Hindus in Dacca and are themselves murdered by retaliation of the opposite side?
It is all very well talking about the reconciliation of peoples, but some regard should be had to facts. As to that pathetic picture of the Gandhi followers standing to suffer the batons of the police! It is no doubt the fact, but it is only one of the ways of passive resistance known to Hindus for ages. The sitting down in public places by way of protest is one of the oldest habits of Hindus. This "sitting Dharma" is considered effective. It is the practice of the country, and I see nothing very extraordinary in its being utilised again by followers of these seditious persons. As to the fact that there are a great many people now in gaol in India, I am under the impression that there are now a great many people in gaol in England for very good reasons. I have no doubt that the people in India are there for very good reasons also. Sedition and conspiracy are admirable reasons for putting people into gaol. That they should terrify us by their numbers is absurd. After all there are 230,000,000 people in India and naturally they can supply a certain proportion of persons for locking up, and that is my explanation of these rather big figures. I promised that I should not speak for more than 10 minutes. I will keep my promise by protesting that the word "India" must never be used synonymous with the "majority of the more active and politically-minded young people in the Congress."

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I rise with some diffidence to speak to-day on the particular matter which has been raised because I feel, as has been said already, that it is, perhaps, a pity to say too much as to the future of India at the present time. I have a further difficulty
inasmuch as I do not find myself entirely in agreement with some of the views which have been put forward from my own Conservative Front Bench already to-day. With every word, however, that has been said on both sides of the House, and more particularly with every word that was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) in praise, in admiration and in gratitude for the Report of the Commission, I desire most fully to associate myself. I cannot conceive that this House could imagine a document of more value to India than the Report—not only because of the recommendations, which must form, I believe, the foundation for the whole of the discussions of the round-table Conference, but also because of the immense value of the first volume which provides this country with information in a form and with a completeness which have long been wanted. Holding this view, if I felt for one moment that the decision of the Government not to include members of the Commission in the membership of the round-table Conference was in any way intended as slighting them or in any sense a belittling of the immense work which that Commission has done, I should be one of the first to join issue with their decision.

Mr. E. BROWN: What else can it be?

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: If the hon. Member will allow me, I will endeavour to tell him. I cannot, however, read it that way. To my mind it is purely a practical issue. Is it to the advantage of the Conference that it should have upon it the members of the Commission or is it not? At this point I want to make it equally clear that I do not pay a very great deal of attention to the idea or theory so often expressed that if any member of the Commission were appointed to act upon the Conference we should not get the co-operation of the people of India. That may be or may not be the case. I rather doubt if it is strictly an accurate statement. Even if it were accurate and I felt that there was an urgent necessity or great advantage for the members of the Commission to be members of the Conference or that their not being so appointed was in any shape or form a slight on any member of the Commission or upon their work, I would pay no attention whatever to
that consideration. But there are, to my mind, other considerations of a practical character.
This document, the report, as I have said, is to my mind certain to form the basis of the whole Conference discussion. It is immaterial whether members who come from India, try to ignore it or not. It is a document which is too important and of too much weight to be ignored. To my mind it will be the foundation on which the discussion of the Conference will take place irrespective of the results to which the Conference may eventually come. The Conference must work on some definite basis, and it must build upon some sure foundation, and the foundation of the very surest character is the report of the Commission, Which so far puts forward the only agreed proposals for the future. Consequently, I say to myself: Is it necessary, and, indeed, is it advisable to have the authors of that report sitting in the same room discussing matters which are largely going to arise out of their own work? It do not think it is.
7.0 p.m.
I can conceive conditions in which it might be extremely difficult for members of the Conference, wherever they come from, to criticise certain aspects of that report in the presence of the members who signed it as clearly and openly as they could do in their absence. For that reason alone, I do not think that it is necessary or desirable. There is another reason why I think it is not essential. The round-table Conference is only the next stage, and the whole question of the future of India is to be dealt with in stages. At and from the Round-Table Conference come the proposals which will doubtless be laid before Parliament. It is then that in one form or another we may be able to congratulate ourselves that the Commissioners have not been members of the Round-Table Conference, for the results of the Conference will then be discussed freely and this House will have the advantage of the criticism which the Commissioners with their unique knowledge can bring to bear at that stage.
There is a third reason why I think the Government have acted wisely. For three years past members of this Commission have been working for India in
what may be described as an entirely non-party spirit. They have greatly assisted in creating a non-party attitude for India and helped to raise the Indian question largely out of party politics. When the time comes for examining the results of the Conference, their impartial attitude and reputation will add great weight to the views they then express. I am glad therefore that the Government have come to this decision. It is not easy for me to express these views, but I felt it to be necessary for me to do so holding the view I do. I want however to emphasise that if there was the slightest idea in my mind that any members of the Commission were ignored or that there was no gratitude for their great labours, I would not have said one sentence of what I have uttered, but would have urged their inclusion so that the House of Commons should in this way express their appreciation and give them that measure of praise which the Government are to blame for not having so far given publicly to the work which the Commission has done. That is my only complaint in this respect against the Government. They have not been generous enough in showing our gratitude and the gratitude of the country to these Members of both Houses of Parliament.
The hon. Member who spoke from the Government back benches referred to affairs in India with great conviction. He had no doubt as to how affairs in India should be settled. I would say that the longer he is connected with the question of the future of India, the less definite he will be as to what we should do. All we can hope at present is to bring about a spirit of good feeling for this Round-Table Conference. I was struck the other day at a meeting held at the East Indian Association with a speech made by the Rt. Hon. Srinivasa Sastri, who is personally well known to many Members here, and is one who has done great service, not only for India but for the Empire as a whole. For weeks past he has been making eloquent speeches very critical of the recommendations of the Commission's report. I was much struck with his attitude the other day when it was put to him whether it would not be necessary for everyone to come together in a spirit of good will and drop some of their preconceived ideas. He said he was prepared to drop three-quarters of his
criticisms and, presumably, his demands in order to get a settlement. If we can get that spirit, then I believe there is a great opportunity for this round-table Conference. There is moderate opinion in India. A Member of the back bench said that the Indian Congress spoke for certain active political opinions in India. That may be so, but vocal political opinion in India represents a small portion only of the community. There is a vast mass in India who so far have not made their voices heard. The Viceroy has gone further to work with moderate Indian opinion than could be expected or demanded. It is not possible to say whether he has not almost gone too far to try and work with all reasonable men and endeavour to bring about that spirit of peace and good will among all sections of the Indian people which alone would make a satisfactory Conference possible. But, at any rate, it is clear that what this House has to do is to make it clear that the round-table Conference is intended to be a real Conference in which every possible shape of opinion may be expressed. But equally this House must make it clear, if necessary, that the decision of the Government is in no sense a reflection on the members of the Commission, and that we desire to express our sense of gratitude for the wonderful work which the Commission has done, the result of which, as I have said, must form the basis for our further considerations and discussions.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): Really, I think it is unnecessary for me to say anything. We thought on these benches that, on the whole, the best interests of India were served by as little being said as possible. So far we have had the whole Session without debate. I do not know exactly what has arisen in the form of criticism of the Government in this debate. If it has given us the chance to associate ourselves with the tribute which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) paid to the work of the Statutory Commission, then I am glad the debate has taken place and would associate myself fully with what he said about that work. It does not seem necessary to say anything further about the decision of the Government as to the membership of that
Conference. The case has been put in words, with which I find myself entirely in accord, by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne). The decision was based on the simple ground that in the Conference the British delegates would meet the Indian delegates with open minds.
The Commission's work is done, its report is presented, and they have given us their solution of this very difficult problem. The Conference will consider that and many other matters; its members will meet without pre-conceived plans. The absence of the Commissioners from the Conference is a natural and proper thing and to represent it as being in some way, as it certainly was not intended to be, a slight on their distinction and knowledge is an entire mistake. The Conference has been called in order that members of all parties in this House may meet delegates from India and hear what they have to say. Although it is perfectly true that much evidence was tendered from many quarters in India, it is equally true to say that many sections of Indian opinion have not tendered their evidence, and the Conference will give them an opportunity to put forward their point of view. Beyond that I do not think there is really anything that I can say. I do not know, after listening to what the right hon. Gentleman said, what his purpose was in bringing forward this debate. With regard to the speech of the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway), its interest and its sympathy must have impressed all members and was in striking contrast to the lamentable exhibition of the hon. Member opposite, whose speech seemed to be intended to exasperate feeling and insult members of another race rather than advance the task of reconciliation. The hon. Member for East Leyton speaks about emergency legislation, amnesties, and so on. I can only tell him that emergency legislation passes with the emergency. As to amnesties, the Government is entering upon the Conference, which is a golden opportunity for the two peoples to come together and for a solution to be reached with a will to peace and a will to success.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I wish we could have heard from the Secretary of State a more adequate explanation of why the Government have taken the very
grave step of barring the door of the Conference, which is to settle the future Government of India, against men who were chosen not merely by the Government and the country, but by both Houses of Parliament to study that question, on our behalf. The right hon. Gentleman did not think it necessary to do so. I think he will find that that will not be the opinion which will be formed by the majority of the people of this country. It is quite true that this is a Conference to secure agreement, but an agreement involves agreement of both sides. It is not merely an agreement among those who come from India, nor agreement between Indians and probably the Government, but it is an agreement between the people of this country and the people of India. In a conference where you are trying to secure agreement, I should have thought it vital to have there representatives of a commission which has studied this matter with great care and with a great measure of research and with infinite patience and ability, to assist the Conference in its deliberations.
The right hon. Gentleman said that this Conference would give an opportunity to its members to hear for the first time the evidence of those who had not submitted their testimony to the Simon Commission. Is it not important that members of the Simon Commission should have that opportunity which they did not get for one reason or another which I will not examine now? I do not want to use any provocative language, but for reasons adequate at any rate to satisfy those in India they did not come before the Commission. Now it is proposed that they should come here and that members of the Government and representatives of the other two parties should hear what they have to say. Would it not have been valuable to have had the head of the Commission to hear evidence of importance of this kind? I should have thought it would have been helpful to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has made the mistake of thinking that the head of the Commission would go there as an advocate with a sort of vague obsession about his own report, fighting for it line by line. That is not my view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). He has examined such evidence as he has had with calm,
judicial impartiality, with great penetration, and with one of the best trained legal minds in the whole of the country. I think he is without exception the most distinguished constitutional lawyer in the whole Empire. His practice has been largely that of interpreting the constitution of the various Dominions and Dependencies and Protectorates of the Empire for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He has an acquaintance with all those constitutional problems in reference to the different portions of the Empire such as no other man in the Empire possesses.
It would have been invaluable to have had a man of his equipment, training, and experience there who would have heard for the first time evidence such as was not vouchsafed to him in the first instance. Would not the Government have found him helpful? Suppose that after hearing that evidence, the Chairman of the Commission had come to the conclusion that, having heard this new evidence, he was prepared to modify his views. I do not say that he would, but suppose that he had, would it not have been of infinite value to him, to the Government and to all, to have had that from the head of the Commission? If the head of the Commission had said: "If I had heard that before, and if that is all that is between us and an agreement, personally I would not object,' an opinion of that kind, coming from the head of the Commission, would have carried weight with us, and I am sure with right hon. and hon. Members on the other bench as well.
I do not know what the numbers of the members of the Conference will be but there will be something between 50 and 100, so far as I can understand from the suggestions that have been made. At any rate, it is to be a very considerable body. An hon. Member opposite spoke about the dominating position that the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley would have at the Conference. He would be one out of 50 or 100. If he dominated the Conference he would dominate it by his knowledge, his ability, his mastery of the whole thing, and if that is the only way in which he would dominate it, why should he not dominate it? The great leader of the Nationalists in India Mr. Motilal Nehru is a man of singular ability. I think he is a lawyer. I know that when two lawyers come
together there is a spirit of cameraderie which overcomes difficulties, and I venture to say that Mr. Motilal Nehru, whatever his opinion may be about the Commission and its report, would have listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley, who would have influenced him as a man of singular ability. Mr. Nehru, as the head of the Congress party, is a man of exceptional ability, and with a broad mind. The head of the Commission would have the advantage of hearing what Mr. Motilal Nehru and other persons would say, and, on the other hand, Mr. Motilal Nehru would have the advantage of hearing what my right hon. and learned Friend the head of the Commission had to say.
I do not think that the Government are gaining very much in India by their attitude. Is it unreasonable that, as one out of 50 or 100, there should have been on that Conference the most distinguished lawyer in the country, who has been chosen by both Houses of Parliament to examine the Indian problem? He would have been one out of a 100 in the Conference. I do not believe that the leaders of the Congress are men of such a type that they would think it unreasonable that he should attend the Conference, especially if everybody went there and said: "We are not committed to the recommendations of the Commission." I say personally, and it is the attitude of my hon. Friends on these benches, that we are not committed to the recommendations. Whichever of us goes to the Conference will go with a perfectly open mind, to hear what is to be said for every proposition that comes before the Conference. Supposing the Government had said, "It would help to an agreement to have the head of the Commission at the Conference." But they said, "We object." His name is blue pencilled the moment there is any objection from India. Do the Government really think that they are making any impression upon Indian leaders and Indian opinion except an impression—which I think is a fatal one for the Conference, if they want an agreement—that all that you have to do is to threaten to wreck or resist, or say that you will not accept it, and the Government can be squeezed to any extent. That is a very
fatal impression to give in India. If I were in the position of the Secretary of State for India or of the Government, even if I did not agree with the Report, I should have thought it an advantage to have at the Conference the person who wrote that remarkable Report of the Commission, one of the greatest State documents of modern times, to have had him there with his very calm, cold analysis of the situation and with his judicial temperament. I should have thought it most desirable to have him there.
The Government, in my judgment, have made one mistake after another in regard to this question. I always thought that the Viceroy's declaration was a great mistake, being made before the Report of the Commission. I felt at the time that it was really torpedoing the Commission. I will not say that it was deliberately done, but it had all the appearance of deliberation. There is no doubt that that has been the effect. How could you expect India to give a fair, calm examination of the Report of the Commission when you had practically in advance told them that you were going to give them a good deal more than anything that appears in the Report? You could not expect it. It was vital that the document should be examined most carefully by Indian opinion. I have a feeling of uneasiness about the whole position as to where we are going and that, somehow or other, the Conference is being manipulated and manoeuvred towards an objective which has already been determined upon, certainly in India if not here—an objective which is more than half concealed from English opinion—with the hope that when that objective has been reached it may be said that it is too late to return. I have had that sort of feeling about the whole business during the last two months.
I am all for a free and open conference, and when I say a free and open conference I mean a conference where everything will be sympathetically examined and where you will not exclude the consideration of any proposals from any delegate representing Indian opinion or British opinion, but that you will examine them with a perfectly open, judicial mind and with a real desire to get an agreement that will satisfy both Indian and
British opinion. I think that in the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India—I think he is very largely responsible—he will find that he has put difficulties which were quite unnecessary in the way of reaching the very agreement which he desires, and I am bound now, for the last time I may have an opportunity of doing so, to enter my firm protest against the course that has been taken.

Earl WINTERTON: I have been concerned in this matter considerably in the past and I should like to express my agreement with all that has been said by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I, in common with most of those who sit on this side of the House, have done my best, as far as I was able to do it, to avoid not only any party question but any controversial question arising between this side of the House and the other side on the subject either of India or of the Commission, and I say deliberately that if a controversy has arisen now it has been caused by the action of the Government. The Secretary of State for India in his reply said, and I think he said it rather casually, that the beat interests of the House and the country would be served by little being said in this House about India at the present time. What an extraordinary attitude to take towards one of the biggest problems of the day. The problems of this country in India will I hope always be solved in a spirit of partnership. How are we going to solve them by ignoring the position of one of the partners? How are we going to solve them by saying that it is dangerous and unsafe to discuss in the British House of Parliament questions affecting the Government of that great country of India. There has been too much mystification on this question for months in this House and elsewhere. We have been told that we shall embarrass this person or that person. The time has come when it is necessary that we should know a great deal more about this matter than we have been told, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken the House far more into his confidence. I think he might have made more of a considered reply to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). He did
not intend to be impolite—I am sure that would be the last thing he would wish to do—but he said that there was no case to answer. There is a case to answer and a very considerable case, and I hope that some other Cabinet Minister will answer the very powerful case that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham.

Mr. BENN: The Noble Lord will remember that I invited the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and himself to speak before me.

Earl WINTERTON: That is true, but the right hon. Gentleman suggested that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham had made out no case to be answered. I say that my right hon. Friend made out a very powerful case to answer. He read a letter from the Chairman of the Commission, and it is a remarkable fact that the Secretary of State in his reply never referred to that letter. I must say, quite frankly—the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) is a personal friend of mine but I am not in his political confidence and in what I am about to say I must not be taken as expressing his views—that the Secretary of State's attitude towards the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley in this matter has, I am bound to say, approached the casual. I think it would have been seemly if in his reply he had referred to the letter which was written by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley. He has attempted no answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. There has been a lamentable absence of any answer and a lamentable absence of any reason given in favour of the exclusion of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley from the Conference.
I want again, although I do not intend to go over the old ground, to point out to the House what a very remarkable achievement the Commission has succeeded in accomplishing. Here was a Commission composed of men who have been engaged for years in controversial politics, some of them men with a very considerable controversial record, and that Commission has succeeded, as the result of most arduous and patient work for two and a-half years, and by a cer-
tain amount of personal risk, in producing a unanimous report. One would suppose from the attitude of certain hon. Members opposite that the members of the Commission were men of no account. Two of the members are members of their own Government. The attitude which the hon. and gallant Member opposite took up was such as might lead one to think that those two members of the Commission have not the reputation which they have in his own party. The Commission produced a unanimous report, a very remarkable achievement, and under the circumstances it does seem astonishing that no representative of the Commission which produced that report should be on the Conference. The right hon. Gentleman did not give any argument against it.
There is only one argument against it, which the right hon. Gentleman did not mention and it is this, that certain interests in India fear that if the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley is included in the Conference, they will be at a disadvantage, because they will be meeting the head of a Commission which has produced the only possible solution which has been produced up to the present. There may be other solutions, but this is the only solution so far put forward, and although invited to do so by Lord Birkenhead it is a notorious fact that Indians themselves have produced no agreed solution. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Nehru"?] Do hon. Members really think that that report was an agreed solution? It has been riddled from top to bottom by Indians themselves. It has not been accepted by a single section of Indian opinion, and has been dropped altogether. One of the reasons why there is so much confusion in Indian politics is that the Nehru report, which was produced with such a flourish of trumpets, and which I admit was an honest endeavour on the part of Motilal Nehru, was riddled from top to bottom from the moment it was produced. The real truth is that in all these months and years Indian leaders have never been able to produce any solution of their own, and, therefore, when we have an unanimous solution put forward by certain hon. and right hon. Members of this House it is intolerable that no member of that Commission
should be present at the Conference. It is a great pity and I am sorry that the Government have taken this action.
The Conference is going to be very difficult business in any case. Everyone hopes that it will succeed, but the Government are depriving it of the presence of the man who more than any other individual would be likely to find a solution. In my opinion it is a calamity. I quite agree with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that the decision of the Government will be taken in India as wiping out the report of the Statutory Commission. That will be a profound mistake for Indians to make. The Conference, even if it succeeds, is not the end of the business. We shall have to consider the proposals' of the Conference in this House, and it would be a great mistake if it went out in India that we in this House are going to ignore the recommendations of the Simon Commission. They will form an important part of our discussions, and it is a, great pity that before the proposals of the Conference come before this House that there should not be in the Conference someone with the knowledge and authority of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley to put forward the views of the Commission in the Conference.

IRAQ.

Sir SAMUEL HOARE: It is usual upon the Appropriation Bill to pass from one end of the world to another, and I venture to ask the attention of the House not to any Indian question but to one or two matters arising out of the Treaty which has recently been signed between the representatives of Great Britain and Iraq. On 30th June of this year a Treaty was signed under which in five years' time it is contemplated that the British Forces now in Iraq will in the main be withdrawn, and Iraq to all intents and purposes become a sovereign and independent state, managing its own affairs without direct British intervention. If 10 years ago it had been suggested that in so short a space of time the representatives of Great Britain and Iraq would be signing a Treaty of this kind nine out of 10 hon. Members would have said that such a hope was optimistic even to the point of being foolish. Yet in that short
space of time our representatives and the Arab representatives have signed this Treaty and we are now within sight of embarking upon a new chapter, under which probably the internal development of Iraq will loom much larger than the problem of external defence, a chapter in which we shall be laying down the trust that was given to us by the League of Nations when we undertook the mandate in the Peace Treaties after the War.
It should be a matter of some pride and satisfaction to every hon. Member of this House to think that mainly owing to the efforts of our civil administrators and the Air Force officers in Iraq such a transformation should have been made possible in so short a time and that we find ourselves to-day in the position of being the first mandated Power under the Peace Treaties to fulfil, in the main, our obligations and be able to hand over the duties we have hitherto performed to an independent Iraq State. A passing tribute is well merited from all quarters of this House to the handful of British civil administrators and Air Force officers and men who have made this result possible. There is Sir Percy Cox, Sir Henry Dobbs, Sir Frances Humphreys, Sir John Higgins, Sir John Salmond, and other names which one could add. These are the men, the civil administrators and serving officers and men in the British Air Force, who have made it possible for us to contemplate in five years time handing back our Mandate to the League of Nations with the credit to ourselves of having carried out in the face of the very greatest difficulties the task that was entrusted to us 10 years ago.
Having paid that passing tribute to this handful of men in this distant sphere of the British influence let me say a word about the Treaty itself, and ask the Under-Secretary of State one or two questions regarding it. I do not take the view that it was not worth facing a certain measure of risk with the Treaty, provided that we could, by taking that risk, create an even more friendly atmosphere between Iraq and ourselves than has been the case in the last 10 years. I will not delay the House with the criticism which might be made—namely, that the time is too short, that we have not yet reached the moment when
we can lay down our obligations. I am prepared myself to take that risk, provided the Treaty is carried out in the, letter and, still more important, is carried out in the spirit. But there are one or two considerations to which I should like to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary of State. At present the main interest of Great Britain in Iraq is the maintenance of Imperial communications and particularly our air communications. Iraq lies midway on the air route between Great Britain and India and the Far East. It is a vital section in that route, and in any arrangements we make with Iraq in this Treaty, or in other agreements, it is vital that the security of our Imperial communications, and particularly our air communications, should be maintained. As far as I can judge I think they are, generally speaking, safeguarded under the Clauses of the Treaty. The Government of Iraq is a member of the International Air Convention and, being a member of that Convention, is under an obligation to allow the free passage of civil aeroplanes and civil air lines.
So far as civil lines then are concerned there is no reason for criticism against the terms of the Treaty or against the present position. So far as our military communications are concerned there, again, I think there is no substance for serious criticism, although there is a point to which I hope the Under-Secretary will give careful consideration. It is vitally important in the development of our system of air defence that we should be able to transfer air squadrons quickly from one part of the world to another. If we cannot do so, then, obviously, we do not obtain the full advantage of the mobility of air power which we should obtain by being able to take machines quickly from one threatened point to another. It is therefore vital that we should have in Iraq, after the period of the Treaty, facilities for maintaining air bases and making it possible to take our air squadrons quickly from Egypt to India, Singapore or Australia. Under the Treaty two bases, one near Basrah and the other on the west of the Euphrates, are guaranteed to the British Government and to the British Air Force. So far, therefore, as the bases are concerned, we need not feel any undue anxiety. But I am somewhat nervous as to what is going to be
the position of these bases and of the squadrons when we have laid down the Mandate, when we have no longer a High Commissioner in Bagdad and when our representative in Iraq is nothing more than an ordinary diplomatic Minister.
I was connected at the Air Ministry for several critical years with the defence of Iraq, and I was always nervous lest air power should in any way be misused or used too much. Hitherto there has been on the spot a British High Commissioner, with the British Government behind him as the mandatory Power. As long as the British High Commissioner was in Bagdad, and as long as we were the mandatory Power, we could prevent the abuse of British Air Force squadrons, and we could ensure their being used only when a real justification for their use existed. Under the Treaty we shall in course of time cease to be the mandatory Power. I should like to hear from the Under-Secretary of State that he has got the future position in his eye, and that he is already in communication with the Air Force and the Air Staff upon the subject. It will not be easy to define the occasions when the Air Force should be used and when it should not be used. It should not be used, of course, to prevent internal disorder, but it should still be used for the protection of the frontier against external aggression.
Unfortunately in countries like Iraq it is often very difficult to draw a clear distinction between the two. You have a raid over the mountains of the North, or you get a Bedouin raid in the deserts of the South-West. In actual practice, looking back over our experience of 10 years, it has been extraordinarily difficult to say clearly when internal disorder ends, when a threat by an external enemy begins, and when a raid develops into a war. Looking to the time when we shall cease to he the mandatory Power, I feel that this situation will have to be very carefully watched. It is presumed that there will still be squadrons of the Air Force at the two bases contemplated in the Treaty. It is most important that when we have ceased to be the mandatory Power and we have no longer a High Commissioner representing the mandatory Power in Bagdad, those squadrons
should not be used as the mercenary squadrons of a Government for which we are no longer responsible, and that the British Air Force should not be used in these conditions for maintaining order in a country for which we have ceased to hold the Mandate. That is a point in connection with our future and the Air Force to which I wish to draw the Under-Secretary's attention.
I come to another part of the Treaty, to another phase of British relations with the Iraq Government; I come to the question of the treatment of minorities. Unfortunately, in the East there is not too good a tradition in the matter of the treatment of minorities. Perhaps I might even extend that charge to certain countries in Europe; but so far as the East is concerned the history of the treatment of minorities in the past has been a very bad one. In Iraq there are two minorities; there are the Kurds on the North-Eastern frontier, and there are the Assyrian Christians in the neighbourhood of Mosul. For the purpose of my argument I take the case of the Assyrian Christians. I have often visited the Assyrian Christians in their villages in the mountains of Northern Iraq, and in the neighbourhood of Mosul, and I know intimately several of their leaders, ecclesiastical and lay. I can tell the House that there is no more interesting little community in the whole of the East than this small remnant of a great nation that was once the dominant power in Mesopotamia and the Middle East—a small remnant now reduced, I suppose, to about 20,000 men, women and children, who still retain some of the purest and most primitive Christian rites, are still governed and, I suppose, are the only community in the world still governed, by a hereditary patriarch, who in the present case was educated at Canterbury, where he became a very good football player—the only Christian patriarch who has ever been in his school football eleven.
They are about 20,000 primitive Christians, who, after every kind of terrible vicissitudes during the War, eventually found their way into the North of Iraq and have there been living mainly under British protection. Their men for the most part have joined a local regiment of levies, and their women and children upon many occasions have been
helped by the Mandatory Power and by British help from these shores. This community is a community of Christians, looked at askance by the Kurds who live to the east of them, and looked at rather askance by the Moslem Iraqis, who live in the other directions. We are under some obligation to these people. During the War they came out boldly on our side, and since the War at very difficult moments in the history of Iraq they have proved useful to us.
I greatly hope that the Under-Secretary of State, when he comes to reply, will be able to tell me that when Iraq applies to enter the League of Nations in two years' time, we shall ask the Iraq Government to give us undertakings and to give the League undertakings that will satisfy us that this small community of Nestorian Christians, with the Kurds to the East, will be properly treated when we have ceased to be the Mandatory Power. In saying that I do not wish to make any criticism against the Iraq Government. All I wish to do is to face the fact that this is a small Christian community, so small that it is difficult for it to stand by itself, is a community to which, both from the interest of it and from the services it has done for us, we owe more than one obligation. It would be a calamity if in the future state of Iraq its existence and its religious independence were in any way wiped out.
I now come to the third part of the Treaty. I see in the Treaty that the details of the financial arrangements are to be worked out in a subsequent agreement. No doubt that is a wise course in dealing with a very complicated financial situation. During Vie last 10 years the British Exchequer and British private capitalists have found very large sums for various activities, defence and civil, in Iraq. I should not like to say how much British money has or has not been spent in Iraq during the last 10 or 12 years. It must run into many scores of millions. But I would like to say, in passing, that so far as the defence side of it goes, year by year we have been able to reduce that expenditure in what is really a most startling manner, and that at any rate in Iraq we have had de facto disarmament on a scale far beyond the wildest imagination of any member of the Disarmament Committee of the League of Nations. The expenditure has been
reduced from £30,000,000, £20,000,000 and £10,000,000 to little more than £1,000,000. Even so, taking into account this sum that we are still spending upon the defence of Iraq, and the much vaster sums of money that we have spent during the last 10 or 12 years, it is very in portant that, without driving too hard a bargain with a new and young State, we should at any rate try in these financial agreements, to get some return for the vast sums of money that we have spent.
I quite agree that at the present time Iraq is a poor country and cannot afford immediately to undertake any great financial obligations, but I believe, looking to the future, that Iraq is going to be a very rich country. I believe it is going to be a very important country from the point of view of air communications, and that in itself will bring money and intercourse into the country. I believe also that it is going to be a very rich country from the development of the oilfields. As the House knows, we have passed through various phases in our views about the oilfields of the Middle East. There was a time when we thought that they were by far the greatest oilfields in the world. Then came a reaction when we were told that there was no oil in Iraq and the surrounding territories. Now, I understand, expert opinion is unanimous in agreeing that the oilfields of Iraq are of very great value, and that in future, as the demand for oil grows, they may play a very large part in the total output of the world's oil supply. That being so, I think it would be only justice to the British taxpayer, in arriving at these financial agreements with the Iraq Government, if we deal not only on the basis of the immediate present, but take into account the fact that possibly in a few years' time Iraq will be one of the richest countries of the Near and Middle East. I am aware that while these negotiations are going on I could not reasonably press the Under-Secretary of State for details of the financial arrangements, but I should like to hear from him that he is taking into account in these financial agreements the fact, almost the certainty, that in a comperatively short space of time Iraq may be a very rich country.
8.0 p.m.
Let me end by saying that the words of the Treaty may be very important,
the conversations which are, perhaps, going on now with reference to the financial agreement may be very important, but what is much more important is the spirit in which the Treaty is carried out on both sides. On our side we have readily to admit the fact that Iraq is not a Crown Colony and is not an integral part of the British Empire. Hitherto it has been a mandated territory with the implication that as soon as it could stand safely on its own foundations it was our duty to lay down the mandate and not to bear any grudge at having to lay down the mandate. On the other hand, it is necessary for the Iraqis, even though they may become under the terms of the Treaty fully independent in the next few years, to be wise enough to take the advice of a more experienced Government than theirs, and not on any account to drift, as so many peoples in the East have drifted in recent years, into an extreme form of nationalism, suspicious of every suggestion from outside, and hostile to any friendly intervention. I believe that if we can maintain on our side a spirit of friendly help, and on their side a spirit of grateful willingness to accept it, Iraq can look forward to a great future and we can look forward with confidence to Iraq remaining a safe link in British Imperial communications and a centre of law and order and stability in the Middle East. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to say something on the points which I have ventured to raise.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I would have been glad had it been possible for me to have had more notice of the fact that this subject was going to be raised, so that I might have been able to do more justice to it. I think it well that without waiting for the full opportunity, which will, however, doubtless arise later, of considering the Treaty as a whole—for it must be remembered that certain connected matters are still in course of negotiation—we should to-day have an opportunity, in the House of Commons, of marking our sense of the importance of this event in the history of the two countries. We could not have had the matter brought before us more appropriately
than by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) who is familiar with this subject in all its aspects. He commented on one or two points and asked me to reply to them and I shall be very glad to do so to the best of my ability. First, he expressed some anxiety about the preservation of the Imperial air communications. The present position is that there are three air bases in Iraq, one at Hinaidi, one at Mosul and one near Basra. The position as it will he five years after the Treaty comes into force, is set out in the Treaty which has been published as a White Paper, and I may quote to the House the appropriate passage:
His Britannic Majesty shall maintain forces at Hinaidi for a period of five years after the entry into force of this Treaty in order to enable His Majesty the King of `Iraq to organise the necessary forces to replace them. By the expiration of that period the said forces of His Britannic Majesty shall have been withdrawn from Hinaidi. It shall be also open to His Britannia Majesty to maintain forces at Mosul for a maximum period of five years from the entry into force of this Treaty. Thereafter it shall be open to His Britannic Majesty to station his forces in the localities mentioned in Article 5 of this Treaty, and His Majesty the King of 'Iraq will grant to His Britannic Majesty for the duration of Alliance leases of the necessary sites for the the accommodation of the forces of His Britannic Majesty in those localities.
And Article 5, among other things includes this sentence:
For this purpose and in order to facilitate the discharge of the obligations of His Britannic Majesty under Article 4 above His Majesty the King of 'Iraq undertakes to grant to His Britannic Majesty for the duration of the Alliance sites for air bases to be selected by His Britannic Majesty at or in the vicinity of Basra and for an air base to be selected by His Britannic Majesty to the west of the Euphratés
It is true that the actual locations are not yet selected, but they are to be chosen by us and they will be selected and the bases actually constructed before the expiry of the five years after the Treaty comes into force. In connection with an incidental reference of the right hon. Gentleman, I would point out that the present High Commissioner or his successor will under the new Treaty become not an ordinary diplomatic minister, but an Ambassador with precedence over the representatives of all other Powers in Bagdad. All the arrangements involved have been worked
out in consultation with and with the concurrence of the service department concerned. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman feels that he has every reason to have confidence in that department.
He expressed some concern as to the possible use of British forces on behalf of the Iraq Government. The chief danger of frontier disturbances lies in the possibility of tribal raids from outside the country's borders. It is not contemplated that British forces will need to intervene in such cases. With regard to more serious and more remote possibilities, the Treaty itself provides the necessary safeguards. In Article 3 it is laid down:
Should any dispute between Iraq and a third State produce a situation which involves a risk of a rupture with that State, the High Contracting Parties will concert together with a view to the settlement of the said dispute by peaceful means in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and of any other international obligations which may be applicable to the case.
Then, the whole Treaty is conditioned by Article 9:
Nothing in the present Treaty is intended to or shall in any way prejudice the rights and obligations which devolve, or may devolve, upon either of the High Contracting Parties under the Covenant of the League of Nations or the Treaty for the Renunciation of War signed at Paris on the twenty-seventh day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight.
I think, therefore, it will be seen that any premature or unjustified employment of British forces is adequately guarded against.
The right hon. Gentleman also drew attention to the important subject of minorities, and I am sure we must all have felt considerable sympathy with the point of view which he put. He stressed the importance of the position of both racial and religious minorities. This question is a familiar one in many countries, and has been dealt with along many different lines, but it has never been regarded as an obstacle to constitutional development and self-government. It has been said that there is no mention of minorities in the Treaty and it has been implied that some safeguards for them might have been inserted. But this criticism overlooks the circumstances in which the Treaty will come into force and the object which it
is designed to serve. The Treaty will not come into operation until Iraq becomes a member of the League of Nations, and until the quasi-mandatory responsibilities of this country towards Iraq have been terminated.
The Treaty therefore when it becomes effective will be a Treaty between two free and independent peoples. When that important fact is remembered, it will be seen that any Clause implying any form of supervision or control of the Iraq Government's dealings with its own peoples, would be incompatible With the nature of the Treaty, and the full independence of Iraq. We are satisfied that the Iraq Government fully intend to give liberal treatment to their minority peoples and that full opportunity will be afforded to them to preserve their own language and culture. We are also confident that the Iraq Government will be in a position, fully, to satisfy the League of Nations on this point when the time comes. Many lion. Members will be aware that the League of Nations takes a special interest in the welfare of these minorities, and, in all the circumstances, I do not think we need feel apprehension about these people.

Sir S. HOARE: Would it not be possible when Iraq tries to join the League of Nations that this question should be brought to the fore both from our own point of view and that of the League of Nations? I should have thought it was just the time when such a question ought to be brought forward.

Dr. SHIELS: I think it is quite probable that the question may be raised then.

Sir S. HOARE: It ought to be.

Dr. SHIELS: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that it is not a subject on which I can make a pronouncement at this time.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke very interestingly about the history of oil in Iraq, and suggested that there is likely to be considerable development in that direction in the future. I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said, and agree with a great deal of it, but he will, I am sure, not expect me to follow him in commenting upon it. He can rest assured, however, that His Majesty's Government is fully seized of the great importance of
this subject and has the matters which he brought forward fully in mind.
On the whole, I was glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the Treaty is satisfactory. A treaty, of course, is a two-sided document, and no doubt we have not been able to secure all that we wished. On the other hand, the same kind of criticism is no doubt being made in Iraq. There must be give and take in all agreements, and on the whole, both contracting parties in this case have reason to be satisfied. I am very glad to be able to associate myself with the tribute paid by the right hon. Gentleman to the work of those British civil officials and to all ranks of the Royal Air Force who have been in Iraq during these last years and who have helped Iraq to reach the final stage of complete independence contemplated in the Treaty. On the other hand, it is only proper that we should recognise that this result could not have been obtained without the statemanship shown by His Majesty King Feisal, who is well known to and esteemed by many Members of this House. His Majesty's Government had the privilege of welcoming him and his able Prime Minister to this country a few days ago. In nine short years King Feisal has made a nation and a name in history.
Mesopotamia, now called Iraq, is regarded as a sacred land in many an Empire home. Thousands of British lads lie there, and it is gratifying to feel that the bond of sentiment thus made has now been reinforced by a Treaty which unites the two countries in a friendship which, I am sure, will be a lasting one.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) addressed to the Under-Secretary of State a question on the subject of the protection of minorities in Iraq, to which the Under-Secretary has given what I might call the orthodox reply that, when Iraq comes to be a member of the League of Nations, that will be a matter for the League and not for any special action on the part of this country. That raises a point on which I should have been glad of an opportunity of asking for an explanation from the Under-Secretary of State had he given me such an opportunity before he rose. Can we have some clearer account of just how His Majesty's
Government have put to the Government of Iraq the obligation with regard to the candidature of Iraq for membership of the League? That point, I think, is worth raising for this reason, that the greatest possible misconceptions are apt to prevail as to the power of any single member of the League, and particularly any member of the Council, to secure success for the candidature of another country to enter into the League, and any opportunity that can be taken to remove those misconceptions is worth taking, particularly to remove them by pointing out that all that can be done by one country in furthering the candidature of another is to use its best offices to promote that candidature, but that it cannot ensure success.
It is, I think, an occasion for real congratulation, which has been most clearly and justly put by my right hon. Friend, and to which we have had quite an adequate response from the Under-Secretary of State, on the fortunate completion of one chapter in our rather complicated relations with the new Kingdom of Iraq and what we hope to be the opening of a chapter which will prove to be equally fortunate in the future. I do not think it need be concealed here, any more than it is concealed from any responsible person involved in this relation, that the step now taken is a bold one. It is taking a very long step forward rather soon after the last. It is a bold one from the point of view of those responsible for the Government of Iraq, the Arab statesmen who form the Government. It is a bold one to contemplate so soon the casting off of all leading strings from the organisation of a State so new in the world, and a world in which competition among States is so severe and complexity of government is so great. It is a bold one also for the Empire, with its high interests involved, affecting in particular, as has been said already by my right hon. Friend, vital matters of interest relating to the Imperial air routes and also the Imperial land routes.
The boldness of the step would not have been justified in anything but a completely favourable atmosphere, and most fortunately we have an atmosphere in our relations with Iraq which is sufficiently favourable to make the step, in my opinion, justified. We owe that atmo-
sphere, as has already been said, to the labours of those who have been responsible for the relations between the two countries in the past, and let me add my tribute to that of the Under-Secretary to the practical abilities of the Iraqi statesmen and politicians under the Iraqi Sovereign who have brought us to this fortunate condition of good understanding. Let me also add a special word for inclusion in the tributes that have been paid to-day to a particular class of officers, and that is the British advisers of the Iraq Government, who are owed a very strong testimony of admiration from us, no less than those who have perhaps occupied more prominent positions. Their task has been exceptionally difficult. It is always difficult to able administrators of our race to be content with a position which is advisory and not executive, because it deprives them of the pleasure of being able at once to carry out their own plans in what they consider to be the most prompt and effective manner, and it requires special gifts of tact and devotion to have succeeded, during the last five years, in making so great a success of the very difficult relations involved in what may be called the advisory Empire. Both sides, by a policy of common sense and devotion to the interests of the people of Iraq, have combined to make this a success.
There is involved in that new relation that has been set up between the big Ally and the small, a situation no doubt which is experimental in its nature and which involves at least one element od difficulty. The difficulty is probably only the consequence of being an experiment, with no experiences of the past to show how it will work out, but we do not know from any experience in the past bow the relations will work out between an independent State come to its full manhood among States and a member of the League, enjoying sovereignty and freedom from control, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, what I may perhaps describe as the guest of that State—that is, the British Empire—living within the territories of the independent State, something in the capacity of a guest, but with the right and obligation of protecting there the vital interests of Imperial communications.
The moat promising circumstance as regards the prospects of this relation
working out satisfactorily is the free recognition in the treaty which has been established by the Government of Iraq that protection of the Imperial air routes and Imperial communications is a permanent interest which will be guaranteed by the Iraq State. That recognition no doubt should raise a high promise that the two partners will be able to sit down with mutual forbearance and understanding of each other's needs, which will lead to a workable relation for the benefit of both parties concerned. That secures the protection of the Imperial interest, but, in order that it may be worked out in a practical way, great forethought will be necessary on the part both of the Iraq Government and of the British administrators involved for the establishment of a sufficiently close connection to enable the functions which will be exercised on the spot by the Imperial Air Force to be exercised with efficiency, discrimination and effect. I do not think that one can emphasise too clearly or at too early a. date that unless the relation is to be allowed to be established in this manner—if there is no sufficient or close liaison, no direct means of communication and of representation in time as regards matters of high policy and administration between the Imperial administrators on the spot and the Arab Government—the Government must be Impractical and unworthy. You will have a great force there, but it will be impossible for it to act under any particular direction.
The relation which we establish requires that the mere skeleton that is set up in the Treaty should be clothed with the flesh and blood of the working, practical, close liaison of the two parties on the spot. The truest words that have been said this afternoon are that this Treaty will depend more on the spirit in which it is worked than upon its letter. It will be essential that the fact of independence shall be clothed with the flesh and blood of practical co-operation in order to make it workable. In this new State that was once an ancient empire, because of the atmosphere of good will and understanding that fortunately still exists in that part of the world, which is due to the high practical ability shown by both parties concerned, we can look forward with confidence to the working opt of this relation. But, in order that the relation may be worked out, it is
essential that His Majesty's Government should consider what is the practical method by which it can in future assist the Government of Iraq. Of course, the services of British experts and the consideration of the extent to which they will be required in future as in the past are essential, but there are other directions.
My right hon. Friend has argued with feeling the case for the British taxpayer, and it was pointed out that, though Iraq may not be now a rich country, it has great expectations. Undoubtedly, that is a matter for the British Treasury to take into account in establishing the financial terms of the Agreement. If Iraq is to be wealthy in future, it can only be by means of a development from its very primitive and backward state, and that development can only be carried out by means of funds and capital. In fact, the great need of Iraq at the present time is development on capital account, and the chief manner in which we can assist her is by taking practical account of that, and recognising that this is the way in which we can clothe the dry bones of disagreement with the flesh and blood a close practical relations. It is a matter of some regret to me and to those of us on these benches that when the scheme of colonial development was brought in, Iraq, though not expressly excluded, was stated out by the drafting of the Act. The point was taken at the time, but I think that it has never been explained for what reason Iraq was excluded from the Colonial Development Act, except some point of title and the idea that the use of an Act called the Colonial Development Act for Iraq might cause some sense of inappropriateness.
I do not think that that difficulty would be very hard to overcome in dealing with Iraq business, and I would take this opportunity of laying at the door of the Under-Secretary and of the Secretary of State the renewed suggestion that even now this ally of the Empire should be included in this scheme of the Colonial Development Fund. There is great opportunity there we know both for the benefit of Iraq and for this country. There are large schemes of development which can be carried out for the benefit of that country, and, if done with financial assistance from the British Government, would
assure orders coming to this country, giving great benefit to this country by way of employment.
I will mention only three such works awaiting development for the completion of the railway system in Iraq. There is the completion of the railway to Mosul, which would open up one of the most compact and fertile grain areas in that part of the world, and is of vital importance to the economies of Iraq. A new railway line would bring many orders for railway material to this country. There is also the building of the Bagdad bridge, and the linking up of the Iraq railways which are broken by the River Tigris. That is a typical case which would result in orders to the benefit of this country, for the whole of the money spent would be spent on bridge material, thus assisting one of the most depressed industries. Then there is the railway to Haifa, linking that up with the great world and sending all the currents of modern life running through the economic veins of Iraq—a matter of the most vital moment to the economic future of the State, which would result in just the sort of order for railway materials, bridges and so on which, if we could secure them here, would be of great benefit to those trades Which most need them now.
There could be no more typical instance of the beneficial direct work which can be done by a little stimulus from the British Government for the development of what is not a part of the Empire, but is so closely associated, that we like to think of it as a particular tie for the benefit of that country on the one hand, as an obligation both of history and under our Treaty; and on the other hand as giving a reasonable benefit to ourselves. The matter needs no argument. I cannot see what can stand in the way of including this new species of activity, which is being extended to similar undertakings in other parts of the world. There is the higher interest to us even than the material prosperity which we derive from such orders in giving the necessary impetus to make Iraq a prosperous and stable State. It is one of the highest interests of the Empire, for the sake of the maintenance of its routes, that there should be in that part of the world a stable, self-maintaining State, and it is to the highest interest, not only of the Empire, but of all the world, that the central point of the equilibrium of the
Middle East should be a secure and stable State in Iraq. Anything that we can do by such an economic effort as I have described in order to secure prosperity and stability in that State is not wasted, for it is to the highest purpose.

EDUCATION (TEACHERS).

Duchess of ATHOLL: I feel it important, inasmuch as there has been no opportunity for discussing the administration of the Board of Education during the past year, to take this opportunity of trying to get rather more detailed and clearer information than has hitherto been given as to the arrangements which the President is making for increasing the supply of trained teachers in the future. I do not approach this question from the point of view of what may be the needs of the country if the school age be raised, because I quite understand that that is not a subject we can discuss to-day, but of the needs of the schools in view of the increasing measures of reorganisation and the steady reduction in the size of the larger classes. Quite obviously, when any expansion of education is in progress the question of prime importance is a supply of efficiently trained teachers, and in the course of the last six or eight months many questions have been addressed to the President from all sides of the House as to the number of additional teachers for whom he has arranged or was in course of arranging. Many answers have been given, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will forgive me if I say that the numbers which have been mentioned in the replies have been almost as many as the number of questions put. I feel that the House is entitled to have a clear statement of the number of teachers who are actually now in training additional to the usual supply and the number of teachers who will enter the training colleges next autumn and the following autumn.
To take, first, those who are actually now in training in the two-year training colleges in addition to the ordinary supply. In November last we were informed that 1,091 teachers additional to the usual supply had entered those colleges. They should finish their training by July, 1931, but not any sooner. On the 26th March another question was
put and a reply was given by the President of the Board to the effect that the output of trained teachers in the summer of 1931 was expected to exceed the output for 1930, that is, the normal output of an ordinary year, by about 1,400, and he added that it was not possible to give the numbers for 1932. That is a very considerable difference, that jump from 1,091 to 1,400. An explanation may possibly be that the second figure includes teachers trained in University training departments, but it certainly requires explanation. On 21st May, the Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to a question, alluded to the 1,014 extra students who had been admitted to the training colleges in 1929. That is a drop from the 1,091 students previously mentioned, and seems to indicate rather serious casualties among student teachers; it also requires explanation in relation to the figure of 1,400 given by the President of the Board in March.
A still more surprising thing was that on the following day, on 22nd May, the President, in giving in reply to a question, the figures of the average annual output of teachers in two-year training colleges over the last four years, gave figures from which it appeared that the additional number of students admitted to those colleges in 1929 was not more than 760 above the average. The first figure given was 1,091, the second 1,400, the third 1,014, the fourth was 760. Finally, the President on the Second Reading of the School Attendance Bill, told the House that in 1930–31 the expected increased output of teachers would be 1,250. There we have no fewer than five figures, all relating to the same period. A rather important point to notice in connection with the figure I have given from the President's speech on Second Reading is his reference to the year 1930–31. In Parliamentary parlance I think that would mean a year ending on 1st April, 1931, and not a year ending in July, 1931, but we know quite well that the teachers admitted to training colleges last September cannot finish their training before July 1931. As a matter of fact, therefore, there can be no additional teachers coming out of the training colleges in what is strictly the year 1930–31, because that would imply that the additional teachers had entered the training colleges in the Autumn of
1928, and we know that no additional teachers were entering the training colleges at that time. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to say which of the five figures given by himself and the President is the correct one for the period ending July 1931, and to say whether I am not correct in thinking that the "1930–31" in the President's speech must be taken as referring to July, 1931, and not April, 1931, as would appear on the face of it.
Then we come to the teachers who may be expected to come out of the training colleges in July, 1932, that is to say, those who will be admitted to the training colleges next September. There, again, we find some discrepancy between various statements. On the 22nd May, the figure which the President gave me as the normal annual output of teachers was 5,700, and he told me that 6,460 students were expected to enter in 1929 and about 6,200 in 1930. That statement meant that an additional 760 are now in the colleges and coming out in July 1931, and that a further number of not more than 500 are expected to enter the colleges this next autumn and to end the course in July 1932. But when I turn to the Second Reading speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I find that he told the House that he thought the expected increase in the number of teachers for 1931–32 would he 950. That is a big jump between the 22nd of May and the figures given on the 29th of May. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary which of those figures is correct.
We now come to the extra teachers who will leave in July, 1933. Here we have only one figure, i.e., that of the Second Reading speech, and it is 1,800. That is a big jump from the figures for 1932, and, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I find it very difficult to understand. How can the right hon. Gentleman be so certain that one-and-a-half years hence there will be an additional 1,800 teachers available! Can he corroborate that figure. I have pressed more than once for a statement of how many teachers are expected to come in next year, how many of them are men and how many are women, and how many of them are qualified for ordinary class teaching, and how many will be trained in practical subjects. The right hon.
Gentleman has been quite unable to give me any details in reply to those questions except in regard to the teachers actually in training. Only to-day the President of the Board of Education gave me an answer from which it appears that he is quite unable to say how many of those teachers who may be expected to complete their training in July, 1932 or 1933, are men, and how many of them women.
I feel obliged to say that, in the absence of any practical details, the figures which have been given are very nebulous. The teachers who go to men's colleges are men and those who go to women's colleges are women. In order to obtain the figures which have been given, surely there must have been negotiations with the various colleges, arid yet the President of the Board of Education, in announcing these very sanguine figures, is unable to fill up the details, and he says that he cannot tell us before we separate for the Recess how many are going to the training colleges. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give that information when he replies in the debate. We want to know exactly how many teachers have been arranged for. That is a very practical and a vital question because of the extended demand which arises for teachers as a result of the reduction of large classes. We have been told that for normal expansion alone, 1,750 teachers will be required in 1930–31. Those figures relate only to normal expansion without any question of the raising of the school age. Let us be clear that 1,750 additional teachers will be required during the present financial year.
The President of the Board of Education went on to say that during the last three years the numbers of certificated and special subjects teachers employed in the schools had increased by about 5,000, and he also told us that he had no reason to suppose that the normal expansion of the teaching profession would not meet the normal increase expected in the next three years, which he thought would again amount to 5,000. That statement seems to me to be a very sanguine one. The right hon. Gentleman did not give any positive reason for assuming that there will be 5,000 spare teachers roaming about the country during the next three years. I should have thought that
the chances were that, assuming a large number of additional teachers had been absorbed into the profession during the last three years, there would be nothing like 5,000 left to be absorbed in the next three years without additional teachers being trained. I would like to know what are the substantial grounds on which the President of the Board of Education bases that calculation without including additional teachers in course of training.
With regard to unemployed teachers, we have been told that there were 400 unemployed two years' trained teachers last December and 300 with university training. Several months have elapsed since then, and the right hon. Gentleman is not able to tell me how many of those are now unemployed. A statement that there were 700 teachers unemployed last December does not carry us very far considered in connection with the statement that 1,750 will be required in the year ending 31st March next. Again, the right hon. Gentleman told us that in the year 1931–32 normal expansion will require not less than 3,500 more teachers. Besides that it is estimated that 5,000 more will be needed that year on account of the raising of the school-leaving age. To meet the need for these 8,500 teachers we have only the President's expectation that the normal expansion of the profession will be equal to the normal expansion of the demand, and whatever extra teachers may now be in training. By the year 1932–33 the President has told us that the needs of normal expansion will have risen to 5,000, and of the school age to 8,000. To meet these figures we have only the President's expectations and unknown numbers of teachers in training. We do not know how many of this estimated number of teachers are men, how many are women, and how many have been trained in practical subjects.
I submit that it is vital to know the answers to these questions, quite apart from the raising of the school age. The hon. Gentleman knows that reorganisation has been undertaken in the interests of the older children in the primary schools, in order that they shall have instruction suitable to their years, and shall not have to be taught with the younger children. In particular, one of the main reasons for the reorganisa-
tion is, surely, to take the bigger boys out of the small schools, in which they are being taught with younger children by women teachers, and to bring them into bigger schools where they will be taught mainly by men. Far be it from me to minimise the value of women teachers in the profession, for it seems to me that we shall always have to have a majority of women teachers, because I think we must look to women to teach, not only the girls, but also the younger children.
I feel strongly, however, that in the case of boys in their teens it is very desirable that their instruction should be mainly in the hands of men, and, as we know, there is at present a serious shortage of men teachers in the profession. I am glad to know that, of the additional teachers who came into the colleges last September, the majority were men. That is very satisfactory, but the difference between the number of men entrants and the number of women entrants is very small, compared with the shortage of men teachers in the profession generally. Towards this shortage of teachers, which will remain after allowing for the additional teachers trained in the next year or two, and for the President's sanguine expectation of 5,000 teachers rising from the ground, as it were, to meet normal expansion, it is suggested that 4,000 women teachers will be available, as I was told in answer to a question, from those who otherwise would be expected to retire on marriage. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary, how is it going to be possible to ensure the benefits to the older boys that we all wish to see from the reorganisation, if it is necessary to depend largely, in teaching those boys, on young married women teachers?
I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary of the stress that is laid in the Hadow Report on the need for more practical instruction, both for boys and for girls. It is no answer to that need for more practical teachers to refer, as the President did, to 500 specialists with high qualifications who might be obtained from the universities. I do not wish for one moment to discount the value of the high qualifications that those teachers might possess, but I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that, when we want teachers of practical subjects, we are not accustomed to go to the universi-
ties to find them. We expect to get from the universities teachers of the academic subjects of the classroom, but the universities are the last places in the country from which we can expect to find the teachers of practical subjects who are needed in such largely increased numbers for these reorganised schools.
9.0 p.m.
Therefore, I feel that the Rouse has a right to be assured as to the exact figures that have been arranged for to date. I can quite understand that it may be difficult to give very exact figures far ahead, but I submit that, if figures are given, they should be consistent, and should be based on negotiations with colleges which either take men or do not take men, or which either take women or do not take women. Therefore, we ought to be given more details about the figures than we have yet had. Again, we ought to know whether many of these teachers, or some of them, who may be looked for from the colleges are teachers in practical subjects. Unless we can be certain that these figures stand on some assured foundation, it seems to me that the position, merely in regard to the needs caused by normal expansion, is distinctly disquieting, while as regards the raising of the school age it seems to me, on the figures that have been given, it is a mockery to expect that raising the school age next year can realise the benefits which everyone interested in education would wise to see that Measure bring.
There is another question that I should like to ask, and that is with regard to the standard of certification for teachers. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, remember that the late President of the Board of Education invited the universities to come to the assistance of the Board and the training colleges on the question of the final examination for certification of men and women teachers, and, as a result of that invitation, to which the universities very cordially responded, joint examination boards were set up by the universities and the training colleges, to arrange for these examinations. Some important reservations, however, were made when the invitation was sent. Two very important reservations were that the Board would continue to inspect training colleges in respect of practical teaching, and that it would
have to be convinced that the syllabuses drawn up for the colleges were suitable.
The late President of the Board also indicated that it would be necessary for the Board to assure itself that a uniform standard would be adopted by these various examination boards. No actual steps, however, were taken to set up any standardising body, because it took some time to get the examination boards in being, and it was recognised that the arrangement was made for an experimental period—that it was a system in which the way had to be felt. But I own that I am disquieted to find, on page 54 of the Board's report for this year, a reference to the examinations conducted by these examination boards from which it appears that, in two of the areas at least, the standard recognised for passes has been lower than when the examination was conducted by the Board. The figures indicate that there have only been 58 failures altogether, whereas at the Board's last examination there were no fewer than 269 failures. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to tell the House what steps are being taken to ensure an adequately uniform level between these various examination boards.
It seems to me that the responsibility of the Board in this matter of training teachers is one of the greatest of the responsibilities of that great Department. The Board, in my view, cannot divest itself of responsibility for seeing that teachers in the grant-aided schools of this country are suitably and efficiently trained, so long as Parliamentary grant is taken towards the training of teachers; and, as we know, the Parliamentary grant very largely meets the cost of training teachers. I believe that the universities never made any difficulty about the Board setting up the Secondary Schools Examination Council, which satisfies the Board as to a uniform level for the school certificate examination, and it seems to me that, great as is the Board's interest in the school certificate examination, its interest in the examination and certification of teachers is even greater, because the teacher is the main fulcrum of education, the pivot of it all, and, so long as the Board is responsible for the efficiency of education in this country, it cannot divest itself of responsibility for ensuring that the teachers are efficiently trained.
I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this question of the efficiency of teachers becomes more and more important with every additional student teacher who is brought into the profession. It is clear from another statement earlier in the report that, in order to admit these additional teachers to colleges last autumn, a lower level of candidates had to be taken. It is indeed obvious that that must be the case, and, therefore, it seems to be all the more important that the Board should keep its eye very carefully on the final examination and certification of teachers, because no greater disaster could befall education than that there should he any lowering of the standard of the certificated teacher

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): I thank the Noble Lady for having given me some measure of notice that she was going to raise some of the points she has raised, but I should have been more glad if she had given me more particulars, especially that she was going to contrast figures which have been supplied to her at various times during the preceding months in order to point out what seems to her to be an inconsistency between the figures. It was important that I should have notice of this because it is rather relevant to know in what form she asked the question on the occasions to which she refers.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I did give the hon. Gentleman verbal notice that 1 could not make out the various figures that have been given me and I was anxious to be clear about them.

Mr. JONES: I am afraid there has been some sort of misunderstanding between us. I am sure she has not done it intentionally, but it is somewhat inconvenient for me to charge my memory at this moment with all the particulars that she has spoken about and I cannot very well give an explanation with regard to each of the figures that she has invited me to examine, but I can perhaps give one or two as illustrating that it very much depends on the form in which she originally asked the question. Let me take one figure. She asked for an explanation of a figure of 1,400 in relation to students in training colleges. There is a disparity, let us say, between
the figure of 1,400 and the figure of 1,250 which my right hon. Friend used in the education debate. That is not difficult to explain. The 1,400 covers the entries for the two years from 1929 onwards, but it also covers the entry of one years students in 1930. That makes a substantial difference, because my right hon. Friend, in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, used the figure of 1,250 in a different sense. Let me take again a figure of which she asked an explanation. She took the figure of 1,091. In point of fact, 1,091 represents the extra numbers admitted in 1929 over the ordinary entries. The disparity in the figures is not one that shows any inconsistency at all, but rather indicates that the answers to which the Noble Lady refers had relation to a particular problem which she had in her mind and in no way controverts the figures my right hon. Friend gave in the previous Education Bill debate.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I think the hon. Gentleman will remember that, when I came to the figure of 1,400, I said that might be accounted for by the inclusion of university trainees, but there is still a discrepancy between the answers referring to two year trained teachers of 1,091 given on 7th November, the 1,014 referred to on 21st and the 760 on 22nd May. In every case the question was clearly related to two year training.

Mr. JONES: The Noble Lady takes me somewhat at a disadvantage. These figures are thrown across at me without any notice and I really cannot answer her as adequately as I should have liked to do if I had had full notice. We can, no doubt, discuss these particular differences at a later stage, but what she really wants to-night is that I should discuss in a few brief moments the problem as to whether we are in fact meeting the situation which must arise in connection with reorganisation by providing an adequate supply of teachers. If I do not follow her in a discussion of the figures about which she has asked me, I am sure she will acquit me of desiring to avoid them. It really arises from the fact that I have not had adequate notice to enable me to examine them. There is one point that I should like to answer quite specifically. She asked whether the figures refer to the end of April or the end of July.
They refer to the end of July and not April.
The general point the Noble Lady has raised is one of very great importance. It is as to whether the supply of teachers that will be available will be adequate to the needs of the schools of the country in connection with this great problem of reorganisation. May I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend said on the occasion of the Education Bill a few months ago:
I first take the figures of the normal expansion. In the three years ending March, 1930, the numbers of certificated and special subject teachers employed in the schools increased by about 5,000. The normal expansion of the profession met those needs. There seems to be no reason at all to suppose that the normal expansion of the profession will not meet the normal increase in the next three years. There remain the 8,000 additional teachers required arising from the raising of the school age and reorganisation.
That figure has been subject to some meticulous examination from the point of view as to whether it is not an exaggerated estimate of the number of teachers that will be available. My right hon. Friend went on in this way:
I am expecting the following special output from training colleges; and that is without calculating on any further steps which it may be possible to take to meet the present emergency. In 1930–31 the expected increased output will he 1.250;

Duchess of ATHOLL: The hon. Gentleman says the reference means the year ending July, 1931. That means to say there will not be any additional teachers coming out of the training colleges until July, 1931. This does not mean April?

Mr. JONES: The end of July—the end of the training college year:
in 1931–32, 950; and in 1932–33, 1,800, or 4,000 in all. This leaves 4,000 teachers to be provided from other sources by 1933. There are 4,000 women teachers who have, or will have, retired by that time. There are 1,000 teachers who might be retained after reaching the pensionable age. We can draw from both those sources. There are 500 young teachers unemployed after first leaving college; and it is no exaggeration to say that 500 specialists with high qualifications might be obtained during that period from the universities. These figures give a total possible reserve of 6,000 teachers to meet a requirement of. 4,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th May, 1930; col. 1524, Vol. 239.]
I understand that the Noble Lady controverts those figures in certain particulars. For instance, she has some doubt as to whether there are, in fact, 500 unemployed teachers available.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I did not say that. I gave the figures of unemployed teachers, but I did not press the hon. Member on that subject. I said that 500 specialist teachers from the universities were no use for the practical side, and that 4,050 married women teachers would be no good for teaching the older boys.

Mr. JONES: I take the specialist teachers. It is true that in regard to specialist teachers our main fear is as to the position in the future, but while that is true, I want to assure the Noble Lady that there is no reason to suppose that the supply of specialist teachers will be inadequate to meet the immediate needs of the schools. I will give one or two facts concerning the supply of specialist teachers. Let us assume for a. moment that there is an immediate shortage. What is the Board actually doing in order to replenish the supply of specialist teachers? First, there are short courses, as the Noble Lady knows, conducted each year by the inspectors of the Board. There are about 2,500 teachers, mostly head teachers of country schools, who have passed during the last two years through those special courses. Those are courses conducted by the inspectors of the Board. They do not include the short courses conducted by the local education authorities. If you add those courses to those I have already mentioned, it will be obvious to everyone that the supply available must be very considerable.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Are these courses really long enough to insure that a class teacher will be able to emerge a practical teacher?

Mr. JONES: It may be that one course taken in the summer vacation may not be adequate, but a large number of students, many of them to my personal knowledge, attend the same course for one, two or even three successive years, and that makes them into pretty efficient teachers for undertaking the task of giving specialist instruction in schools, especially in handwork and other practical subjects. There are improvements in process of
realisation in the ordinary course of training in the training colleges, and a new development is taking place—I am not claiming that any special merit belongs to this Government—in the direction of affecting closer co-ordination between some of the training colleges and technical institutions in the immediate neighbourhood. I will give a case in point. There is the Nottingham University College which is effecting a pretty close degree of co-operation with the Loughborough Technical College. In that way we are giving teachers a special course in practical mechanics, with some instruction and preparation for understanding industrial life and with opportunities of gaining industrial experience. There are plans for intensive training by using technical institutions so that intending teachers may equip themselves for new tasks which may devolve upon them. I have indicated that we are not overlooking the general need for equipping teachers for special duties which will arise when reorganisation is an accepted thing throughout the country.
I will now say a word or two upon the question of the teaching of domestic subjects. One hundred and twenty-nine teachers of domestic subjects are being trained above the four years average and they are expected to issue in 1931.

Duchess of ATHOLL: They are included in the total of 1091.

Mr. JONES: I think not. I am giving an answer, subject to correction, of course. In 1932, there will be another 101 additional places offered, and in 1933—though I cannot give the actual figures—we expect that the output will be repeated, and that probably there will be an addition of something like 150. These facts indicate that we are having regard to the need for developing more preparation for teaching in domestic subjects. There are other special subjects for which we are making more preparation. We are doing our best to push forward the development of the teaching of woodwork, metalwork and other practical subjects, including physical training. I am able to give a firm assurance to the Noble Lady, and to the House, that the question of providing for efficient teaching in the new reorganised schools for older children is not being overlooked by the Board in any sense whatever.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Can my hon. Friend give us an assurance that these teachers are being trained to stand up before a class and teach, apart altogether from their knowledge of technical subjects? Are they being given any facilities for learning how to teach?

Mr. JONES: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is one of the factors which must necessarily occupy the minds of people who are interested in the standing of the handicraft teachers in the schools of the future. It is an important point, and one which ought not to be overlooked. The handicraft teacher of the future ought not to be a person made to feel that he is apart from the rest of the staff of the school. Therefore, it is in the highest degree essential, and we hope that it will be realised in the future, that the handicraft teachers shall be trained people in the fullest sense of the term, but having an extra qualification of being able to teach handicraft or other special subjects. In that way they will be saved from isolation from the rest of the members of the staff. In my judgment—it is only my opinion—one of the ways of safeguarding the status of the fully-trained specialist teacher in the future will be for the local authorities themselves, when they come to appoint heads of schools, to give encouragement to such specialist teachers by considering them for the headship of schools. That will show that they are not debarred from the full measure of promotion enjoyed by their colleagues on the staff.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Is the hon. Gentleman arranging for any additional supply of teachers of that kind apart from domestic science teachers? I think that what he has been speaking about apart from domestic science teachers, has been class teachers who have been getting a special course of instruction. Can he tell us if there are any specialised teachers of woodwork or mechanics who are getting training as teachers?

Mr. JONES: As far as we possibly can, we are providing as adequate a supply as possible of specialist teachers who are able to take any special subject that may be included in the curriculum of the schools. But at this moment there is not an adequate supply of people specially
trained for every given subject. We must, of course, for the time being, make shift with those who have been specially trained, plus the teachers who have taken short courses. In due time, no doubt, we shall be able to say that the supply of people specially trained for special subjects will be adequate to meet the demand.
I am sorry that I have taken up so much time of the House, but I should like to turn from the general assurance I have just given to the final point which the Noble Lady raised. It is the question of the standardisation of the qualifications of teachers who emerge from the various training colleges. She referred to that part of the Education Report of 1929, and said her mind was very much exercised over the fact that there were two areas which, she thought, had fallen short of the general standard. I appreciate her concern, but I think she should take some comfort from the fact that the mere mention of that point in the report indicates that the Board is taking cognisance of it, and, further, that we propose to watch developments very carefully. Not only am I able to give that assurance, but the Board's inspectors who attend, in the various areas, the meetings of the examining bodies, have reported to us that the point has been noted and that the notice in the Report is having the desired effect. They think that the previous standards are likely to be more closely maintained.
The question of standardisation was raised during her time at the Board of Education, and it was then recognised that arrangements for securing it would have to be made. I am happy to tell her that in prosecution of that policy a committee is about to be set up for correlating the work of the various examining bodies so as to effect more easily the standardisation which she desires. I am authorised by the president to say that he has invited Mr. Mayor, a distinguished ex-servant of the Board of Education, who has already presided over a committee which went into this question, to become chairman of a central advisory committee to examine the matter. I am happy to say that Mr. Mayor has accepted the invitation, and in association with him on the committee there will be representatives of various universities and university colleges, local
education authorities, local education authorities providing training colleges, other bodies responsible for training colleges, representatives of teachers and training college staffs. These people are actually being chosen by the various bodies who will be represented, and I have no doubt the committee will set to work as speedily as possible. The fact that Mr. Mayor has accepted the chairmanship will, I am sure, be adequate assurance to the Noble Lady that the work will be well and efficiently done. I have now covered quite briefly the points she has addressed to me. I apologise for having failed to give the precise answer as to the particular figures asked for, but I hope on the general question I have given a firm assurance that the work is being well looked after.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am sorry I did not make it clear to the hon. Gentleman beforehand exactly what points I wished to raise. I am very glad to know of the steps which have been taken towards standardisation of the certificate examination, and to emphasise how fortunate the Board is in having the services of Mr. Mayor as chairman. There could have been no better choice.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Now that the Session is nearly terminated, hon. Members very shortly will be in closer touch with their constituents. I know they will excuse me if I offer a few observations on a matter which will, presumably, form the burden of most of their speeches—the subject of unemployment. I suggest that when hon. Members opposite are selecting their wardrobe for the holidays, they would be wise to include a white sheet in their kit. I was perusing the other day the Election address of the Prime Minister, and I came to the conclusion that the largest white sheet would have to be packed by him. I propose to quote a few passages from his Election address, although, no doubt, hon. Members opposite have it almost by heart. It is interesting as being a document of high authority, and as a speculation as to what things were going to be like. There is a sentence in it which I wish to deal with at rather greater length later. It is headed,
"Labour and Trade Prosperity." To speak in the light of to-day's events, a person might be disposed to say that is a contradiction in terms. It says:
Trade prosperity is the special concern of labour. We, unlike the Tories, are not a class party. To us, national prosperity is not the opportunity for profiteering, but the only prospect for an ample life. The worker, his wife and family now make claim for a nook in their own country where they can have a chance to give service to others and enjoy the results of their work. In a sentence, that is the purpose inspiring the Labour party.
When we look at the increase in the number of unemployed, we see what sort of nook they are likely to get as a result of 15 months of the present administration. Dealing with unemployment, it says
Labour was, therefore, the first to make unemployment a political issue. That issue remains in the forefront of its programme.
But does it still remain there? Then he said
Both the other parties have pledged themselves to deal with it, and have enjoyed both the time and the majorities necessary to fulfil those pledges. They have failed, and failed lamentably. They have come to an end of their own ideas, and they have had to borrow ours.
Well, it is a poor exchange. What has been the result of the ideas specified in this document? It goes on:
Our published programme of national work which will help to absorb the unemployed is, therefore, a programme of national development and of stimulation to trade—both home and export trade.
I will deal with that later.
The figures of unemployment are the measure of the failure of the organisation of our economic life, and they can be reduced permanently only by restoring the nation to health.
When we look back 15 months, and upon the appalling numbers and conditions which present themselves to-day, it is really a matter in which one feels sorry that unemployment should be made a political issue and stand in the forefront of any political programme. I remember looking at that bench 15 months ago and seeing the great triumvirate of the late Lord Privy Seal, the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the present First Commissioner of Works sitting there, as it were, garlanded with pledges and promises, radiant with hope, full of confidence and surrounded by a flattering Press and the eulogies of all
with whom they came into contact—not excluding the cinematograph. A new Member of the House, not familiar in any way with previous Socialist Governments, might well have been excused for contemplating that in a short while a grateful country would have set up some form of commemoration of the triumvirate. At the time, it occurred to me that some recognition of their prospective victory over unemployment would take the form of a group of statuary, in which the late Lord Privy Seal might rightly be represented as Hercules, supported on the right by Cupid and on the left by Father Time. Those statues will never be erected; the model is shattered, dismembered, gone! Hercules has betaken himself to another labour, Cupid has flown to the mountains, and only Father Time remains, to survey the immutability of human affairs, to mourn by the banks of the Serpentine and to count the remaining hours of a moribund Government.
In the document from which I have quoted, there occurs the phrase:
Our public programme of national work which will help to absorb the unemployed is a programme of national development and the stimulation of trade, both home and export trade.
Looking back upon that programme of national development., have we any reason to be in any way encouraged or satisfied by the result? I do not know the exact figures of men who have been employed as a result of this development of a national programme, nor do I know exactly the amount spent. Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal will tell us. I was impressed a short time ago by reading an article in the Press by a former Member of this House, Mr. Harold Cox. No doubt many hon. Members will have read that article, but as it may have escaped the notice of some I propose to give some extracts from the data which he gave, bearing upon a programme of what he calls relief work. It will be of some interest to the House, because it gives the experience of other Governments in other generations when they tried methods of helping to cure unemployment, and the House will see from the result that very little trust can be placed in such programmes. Mr. Harold Cox gives an instance from what happened in 1904, when there was a period
of unemployment and various borough councils started schemes, such as we are starting to-day, to relieve unemployment by remaking roads, extending municipal parks and so on. In 1905, the Local Government Board gave a report on the practical results of those schemes, from which I will quote a few instances. In Camberwell the work done cost 50 to 75 per cent. more than it would have cost if it had been done in the normal course. In Stepney, road cleaning which should have cost £486 cost £3,569, because machinery was discarded for hand labour.
In 1905, this House passed an Act called the Unemployed Workman Act, which embodied the same prinicple as is embodied in some of the Acts passed by the present Government, to encourage local authorities to start relief works. The report of the Central Unemployment Body for London showed that the estimated cost of work for the reclamation of land was £18,000 and that 200 acres of land were to be reclaimed, at an estimated value of £5 per acre for the reclaimed land. In other words, a cost of £18,000 to get the value of £1,000. In 1909, still following up that Act, the Manchester City Council issued a report by its distress committee, which stated that:
In view of the acute distress the Committee decided to borrow £50,000 for road-making, laying out parks and other work suitable to he undertaken by the unemployed. The results were very unsatisfactory, the effect upon various sections of skilled workmen, especially those engaged in trades calling for delicate manipulation, has been of a deteriorating character.
On one job there was an expenditure in wages of £15,000, whereas the normal expenditure would have been £4,500. The report continues:
Similar results were shown in other works carried out by the unemployed.
Although some works on which the unemployed had been engaged would have been undertaken at later dates the policy of forestalling expenditure had the necessary consequence of displacing labour which would then have been engaged. The general conclusion of the report is that:
The Unemployed Workman Act of 1905 is causing an enormous and absolutely unwarranted waste of public money and shows conclusively that it would be far more
economical to maintain the unemployed temporarily than to endeavour to provide them with work of the character hitherto found.
I will not detain the House by detailing what happened in 1834, when much the same condition of things occurred, or in 1848, but I would suggest to the Government that they are placing, or they are inducing She country to think that they are placing, too much reliance upon the stimulation of local authorities to spend money upon artificial relief works, and that to do so is not economically sound or wise. We cannot expect very much good to result respecting the unemployment problem in such a policy. The Lord Privy Seal will remember the report of the Industrial Transference Board. Whether or not hon. Members opposite agree with the conclusions, I do not know, but here are one or two facts from it. It has been estimated that:
The cost of putting 1,350 unskilled men to work on trunk road construction for one year would be £1,000,000, and on land drainage for the same sum 1,000 unskilled men would be employed for two or three years. Since the Armistice"—
the report was issued in June, 1928, and the figures are much larger since—
under the varied and comprehensive programmes of works in relief of unemployment (not including trade facilities guaranteed schemes) works of a total estimated value of slightly under £190,000,000 have been approved, and notwithstanding the magnitude of the undertakings there have been at no one date more than 75,000 men employed on such work, and some of these men for short spells only.
The writer of the article from which I have been quoting said that £1 cannot be spent in two ways. It will not pay wages on relief works and wages for employment in the normal course. The taxpayer cannot have it both ways. If money is to be paid out for relief works you are not able to spend it on normal employment. These relief works, if persisted in by a Government which is almost at its wits end as to how to deal with the problem, will land us in a much worse position than we are at the present time. I am aware that it has some affinity with the Liberal policy, but I do not think that that is any recommendation. In my own constituency we had a striking poster of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) waving his arms and saying "We will conquer unemployment"; and he had the courtesy to be attired in a
very bright blue suit which happened to be the colours of the Conservative party in that division.
Let me put one or two points on a question of principle. I have always understood that the policy of the Labour party is a redistribution of the national wealth. It is, therefore, rather surprising that whenever the Minister of Labour comes to this House to ask for another £10,000,000 for the Unemployment Insurance Fund that she should do so in a very humble, apologetic and chastened spirit. Why? The £60,000,000 which have been borrowed will never be paid back by the fund, it will be a charge upon the taxpayers of the country indeed, there is no other way of liquidating that debt, and, therefore, the party opposite should welcome the situation as involving a greater distribution of the funds of the nation than would otherwise be the case. Similarly, as regards the increased purchasing power of the people, which hon. Members opposite contend results from the distribution of the unemployment benefit, and the greater purchasing power would result if the benefit was doubled, which I understand is their theory. I suppose it is the case that when a man is out of employment, and naturally receiving a lesser amount per week than would be the case when he is in work, the wife has to make economies and has to purchase cheaper goods. It is regrettable, but it is only natural.
This is a point which has occurred to me; the expenditure in such a ease in cheaper goods is largely upon goods of foreign manufacture. Our shops are stocked with goods of an inferior quality and manufactured under conditions which we would not tolerate; in many cases they are dumped goods. These are the goods which the wife of an unemployed man probably purchases, and if it represents an expenditure of a large amount, then the theory of increasing the purchasing power of the people rather falls to the ground. You may be increasing the purchasing power of the people, but you are at the same time stimulating competition abroad and creating a vicious circle, because as the number of the unemployed increases the demand for cheaper goods increases also, with the result that the money is not kept in this country. Whatever we are spending on
unemployment benefit goes out in a steady drain abroad. it is not kept in this country. If it did there would be something to be said for the theory.
Finally, in connection with the stimulation of trade both home and export, I think we should reflect upon the effect of the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Imperial Conference. If I might quote the words of the Psalmist I would say that he is approaching it "with a stiff neck and a proud stomach." If hon. Members opposite have any influence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer I hope they will do what they can to broaden his views so that subjects of vital interest to the prosperity of this country shall not be excluded from the discussions, but shall be treated in a sympathetic manner. It is regrettable that one should have to point at this time to the appalling contrast between the past and the present, and reflect on what might have been had a more energetic and rational Government been in office. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that the fundamental trouble of the whole position is a lack of confidence in the Government. They have put forward all these palliatives and relief works but at the bottom of it all the people believe that the Government have no initiative, and a feeling of apathy and despair is being created which can only be cured by the removal of the Government. This is scarcely to be wondered at, because in season and out of season hon. Members opposite have spent their time in threatening the so-called leaders of capital and industry, the people who have the ability to make money, the people with initiative and energy; and even now they are proposing crushing taxation upon those who have saved money and who provide capital for trade and industry. Nothing will restore confidence and well being to the country but the removal of this Government.

Mr. McSHANE: No one can complain of the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham) in respect of any heat it may have engendered, and whatever may be said of the main points he endeavoured to make this at any rate will be quite clear, that whatever views the country may have as to the policy of the present Government they will hesitate a long time with memories of 1926
before they will be inclined to commit themselves again into the care of hon. Members opposite.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: That is a very poor reason.

Mr. McSHANE: I shall have something to say with regard to that later on. The hon. Member for Lancaster drew a picture of a group of statuary. Let me add another figure to that group. The hon. Member for Lancaster believes that the social system under which we live can possibly be operated without unemployment at all. I might depict him as Sisyphus, attempting to do what is obviously impossible in our social system. The party on these benches was the first to make the issue of unemployment a political issue. When Mr. Keir Hardie came into this House in 1893 as the Member for the unemployed—[Interruption]—I hope the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) with his experience and manners will allow me to go on without interrupting. When Mr. Keir Hardie came to this House in 1893 as Member for the unemployed, and when the Gracious Speech from the Throne made no reference to the question of unemployment, though unemployment was then rampant and was no new thing, Mr. Keir Hardie asked Mr. Gladstone, the Prime Minister, why the Speech made no reference to the question, and Mr. Gladstone replied that he did not think it was the function of a Government to deal with unemployment—a very significant statement. From that time to the present unemployment has been made a first-class political issue, as it should be.
That is why the importance of the question has grown. [Interruption] The right hon. Member for West Woolwich interrupts again, but I do not think I can compliment him upon the intelligence of his observation. Apparently he would suggest that unemployment ought not to be a political problem, that the unemployed ought to be left to do what they did at the beginning of the last century when the industrial revolution began. Presumably he would have unemployment benefit stopped altogether, so that the unemployed would be useful in the factories and elsewhere at a much lower rate of wages than that which they can obtain to-day. That sort of argument
will lead us nowhere at all. Let us deal with this question. I will take one point that the last speaker made. There is probably a good deal in what the hon. Member said, that the unemployed man's wife was compelled to buy cheaper articles, and that that brought into the country what were in essence sweated goods from abroad. There are two comments to be made on that statement. First, I find it a very singular thing that those who wave the Union Jack most, who cry out most for tariffs, and who most decry sweated goods, are very frequently the very men who are purchasing those goods from abroad or are bringing them here.
The second comment I have to make is this: It may be true that by purchasing such goods from abroad the unemployed man's wife encourages sweated goods from abroad, but the corollary of that is not necessarily to prevent purchasing power from rising, but to prevent those sweated goods from coming into this country. We differ as to how that is to be done. In the minds of some of us there is no doubt that now methods will have to be adopted. I understand that one is prevented from discussing legislative proposals in this debate. Let me, however, make one or two comments upon the increase in unemployment. We may be blamed by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, but we are fortified in the knowledge that we have in defence the strong support of the "Daily Mail." The "Daily Mail" has gone out of its way, in a strange moment of aberration, to say that the Socialists are not to blame for the increase in unemployment, that the Socialists have been most unfortunate in that they have come into office when unemployment had already become or was tending to become worldwide, and that no Government could be blamed. The "Daily Mail" paid us that compliment. I do not think that the short-term policy of the Government so far has shown any of the imagination that might have been expected. I think that the whole House, or a very large proportion of it, is being misled in this respect, in being led to consider that by short-term policies we can get men into work somehow in six months or 12 months when industry has become rationalised, and that in some extraordinary way a large proportion of the
men and women, who are unemployed will be absorbed.

Sir K. WOOD: Who said that?

10.0 p.m.

Mr. McSHANE: I have heard such statements not only from our own benches but even from the right hon. Gentleman himself. I am one of those who believe that we shall never again have absorbed in industry the relatively large number of people that were absorbed in the past. I believe that the whole policy of rationalisation—it is the policy of our Government and of hon. Gentlemen opposite—tends more and more to displace men and women. That policy is exemplified in the case of the United States. A leading article in the "Times" of 24th March dealt with the relationship of the machine to the amount of labour employed, and showed that the unemployment in the United States was becoming more widespread, and above all more permanent, as the years went by. I am one of those who think that the policy of rationalisation by itself will lead us nowhere at all, but will increase the numbers of unemployed men and women. Unless, as the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said, there is a bridge established between the goods that are produced in superabundance and the unemployed men and women who have not the power to purchase those goods, there is no hope whatever of a solution of the unemployment problem.
The hon. Gentleman who spoke last referred to purchasing power. Until we recognise that wages shall not be reduced, that we must protect our own home market here from the influx of foreign goods, by means of bulk purchase and not by Safeguarding as hon. Members opposite mean it; until we recognise that women are entitled to as full a livelihood as men; until we recognise that women also should have incomes; until we recognise that children also should have incomes, we can do nothing. In that way, however it may be done, by increasing the purchasing power of the people who alone can consume goods—in that way alone can we make any attempt whatever to solve the unemployment problem.

Captain CROOKSHANK: We have heard a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane), who has given us a peep into future
centuries when babies will have votes and incomes of their own, but that speech is not at all apposite to the present problem of unemployment in this country. I am not surprised, however, that the hon. Member should take that line because, of course, it pays the Socialist party to divert attention as much as possible from our present ills for which they are responsible. The hon. Member said that it was his party which made unemployment a political question. That was a statement made by the Prime Minister, at the Election, in a constituency adjoining my own. I congratulate the hon. Member, at any rate, on his consistency, because the Prime Minister of course has long ago shed that view, and only the other day he asked the Leaders of the Opposition parties to co-operate with him in trying to solve the unemployment problem.

Mr. McSHANE: Unemployment insurance.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Oh, no. The hon. Member is mixing two things. It was unemployment first of all. The question of unemployment insurance arose out of the debate last week when a mysterious committee with mysterious terms of reference was set up about which no details have yet been vouchsafed to the House. But I am referring to what occurred earlier when the Prime Minister invited the Leaders of both Oppositions and gained the assent—we do not know on what terms—of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). But let not the hon. Member for Walsall, and his friends, try to distract us from the present problem. Some 1,972,700 people are enjoying an enforced holiday. We ourselves are going away very soon for a holiday, which we all hope and think is well-earned; but nearly 2,000,000 people have been on holiday for a very long time, and holidays to them are not what the holidays are going to be, we hope, for every one of us in this House. Let us not forget that 850,000 of that colossal total is an increase on the figure of this time last year. That number of unemployed can certainly be attributed to the right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench. Theirs is the responsibility for the 70 per cent. increase over a year ago when they took office, and it is about those men and women that we are worrying.
"Nobody," said the Prime Minister, "will reduce unemployment quicker than the Labour party." What a reduction! No fewer than 850,000 in the other direction. To what is it due? [HON. MEMBERS; "World causes."] I will deal with world causes if hon. Members opposite provoke me, but at the moment I was going to remark that a speaker from the Liberal benches last week referred to the rising tide of anger in the country over this deplorable position and the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) reinforced that view from his own observations. I think when we go to our constituencies we shall find it to be the case, that the people are getting more and more angry and impatient at the complete ineptitude of His Majesty's present Government. The Finance Bill only had its Third Reading in another place yesterday, but, through the increase of unemployment benefit which has had to be passed, the Budget of the year lies shattered already, before we have forgotten the last of our Debates upon it.
What are we to say of the present Government 4 This position is largely due to the crazy optimism of the previous Lord Privy Seal. As we are nearing the end of the Session, I may remind the House of one or two of those things with which that right hon. Gentleman the late Lord Privy Seal used to regale us. Less than a year ago he came here and said that he had a lot of things up his sleeve. He told us that this year it was not going to be difficult to get orders for hard coal, but that the trouble was as to the ability to deliver it. About steel he was even more optimistic. In Christmas week he said he was really putting on the accelerator. I fancy he had been so long away from the cab of his engine that he forgot the fact that you can accelerate backwards as well as forwards. The figures of unemployment are certainly moving but they are moving to the detriment of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. Now he has been shunted, but not before he had altered his time because in one of the last speeches which he made in this House as Lord Privy Seal, he was beginning to make some admissions. He admitted that there was a feeling of want of confidence which was having a bad effect
and that people were taking money out of the country. He said that uncertainty in certain trades—this was after the Budget had been opened—had already made things worse, but, he added stalwartly that panic measures would do incalculable harm and just because he was afraid that panic measures would do incalculable harm, he took no mesures at all.
Since that speech the unemployment figures have gone up by 250,000. We have not heard the new Lord Privy Seal on this subject yet and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be grateful to my hon. Friend who opened this discussion for giving him an opportunity of telling us something of what he thinks on this matter. But of course, these things are important as showing the attitude of mind of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. Good intentions will no more take us to heaven, than to electoral success. Do not let us forget these 1,972,000 men and women because speakers from the Government benches never let out these figures. Their constituents and those interested in their orations, who may read those orations, would never suspect the magnitude of the problem, or even that there was a problem at all. Yet not only each Member of the Government but each single Member of the party opposite is concerned in this indictment. The Labour party used brave enough words at the Election. It was going to be judged it said, not by its words but by its achievements, its deeds, its actions, its omissions. It is the omissions we are talking about to-day.
Some hon. Members try to ride off and say as I have heard it said in this House and outside, "We are not in power" but their own official publication said, that when once again the Labour party "assumed office" not only would it be willing but it would desire that the nation should judge it by its works. When it "assumed office!" There was no question about a majority or power. That is what they said just before the General Election, in their publication "Labour and the Nation," and it is no good trying to ride off today by saying they have not a majority. They have never tried to find out if they had a majority with regard to unemployment; they have never proposed
anything; they have never put it to the test. The Liberal party would have run much more quickly than they into the Lobby on any scheme, however cracked, which the Government might have brought before this House, but the Government have never tried it. They were not going to be satisfied merely with tinkering with unemployment; their schemes had been before the country for years.
They declined to accept the placid assumption that
recurrence of voluntary idleness is still to be regarded, like tempests and earthquakes, as an act of God.
But world causes was a magnificent new phenomenon which came to the brain of one of the triumvirate in charge of unemployment. World causes or not, what happens to other countries? Why do not world causes have their effect on employment in France, for instance I want to get at the actualities of the case. [Interruption.] I am not sent here to devise schemes for the Labour party. My duty here is to criticise and to help to make whatever schemes the Government may produce, if any, a little better. The difficulty is that if they produce no schemes, our occupation is somewhat gone.
One could go on almost indefinitely to show how futile has been the conduct in this House of the Government for 13 months. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after he knew the result of the General Election, not when he was talking for the sake of catching votes, but on 3rd June last year, told us that in the first Session they were going to deal with unemployment and give relief and hope to the workers of this land. What relief and hope? An increase of 850,000 in the unemployed since that time, and nothing proposed, nothing tried! It really is an appalling position for right hon. Gentlemen and Ladies opposite to have to sleep over at night. I really must just remind the House of what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health was going to do:
If we come back, we will end the misery, the hungers and the starvation. I know that to bring in a proper Unemployment Insurance Measure would take months. … We will do these things, but will not only look to the curing of unemployment; we will deal with the people who are suffering from hunger and cold, from want of boots, from want of milk and want of clothes. These
are the things which a Labour Government can cure within three weeks of coining into office.
The Government, by their extravagance, by the way in which they have forced through a Budget which has undermined the confidence of every trade, industry, and merchant house in this country, by the way in which they have neglected the obvious opportunities which have presented themselves to do something for the country, have deserved the fate which they will surely meet before very long. An hon. Member opposite said that the thing to do was to protect the home market, not by Safeguarding, but by some other method. The objective, however, was to protect the home market. The point is that he wanted to see to it that the workers at home got certain protective assistance.

Mr. McSHANE: Without having the benefits taken away by increased prices.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Anyway, the hon. Member wanted some scheme of protection for the workers, but the right hon. Members on the Government Front Bench have made no pronouncement on the subject of import schemes and so on, which we know exercise the minds of some of their supporters. They have produced not a single scheme, not a vestige of suggestion with regard to agriculture. This afternoon, just before the Session closes, the Minister of Agriculture presents a Bill which makes it impossible for us to touch the subject because the Bill deals with a question which we wanted to raise. There must be some low cunning about some people, but there will have to be a great deal more skill shown in the next few months, and the new Members of the Government who have been appointed for the purpose will have to deal with unemployment in a different way from that pursued hitherto. I understand that the Prime Minister is leaving the country tomorrow. In his absence, who is in charge of this problem? When the change came, we understood that the Prime Minister and he alone would supervise these great schemes. Does the Lord Privy Seal take his place, or has an acting Prime Minister been appointed? I would remind the Lord Privy Seal again that these unemployment figures are 1,972,000, yet the Government sit there, in the words of the Proverb:
Yet a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep
doing nothing and thinking of nothing. They strike me like the spectators at the Leeds Test Match. At first, they thought that there was some hope for the English side to get out of their parlous position, and, when they saw there was no hope, the only big matter of interest was to see minute by minute how many records were going to be broken by Bradman. That is the position of the Government. They know that they cannot get out of the mess in which they find themselves, and it is interesting to see from week to week on Wednesday mornings how much the previous records of unemployment have been broken. They have three months to think these matters over. They have a chance still left to them to make up their minds in the autumn to bring to this House some constructive scheme, and do something which might help to mitigate the difficulty. Our plans and programme are before the country, and are well known. The Liberal party have their own scheme, some of it good and some less good; at any rate, they have a policy. The Government alone, who aspire to rule this country, have nothing at all to put before the House. [HON. MEMBRRS: "What is your policy?"] Hon. Members try to be very clever, but I know the Rules of Order better than they do. The Government have still time left, but the hour glass is running out. Let them think hard; otherwise, they will be swept away, despised by their opponents the Conservative party, rejected by their Liberal allies, and loathed by their supporters on the back benches.

Mr. TILLETT: I have listened to the very good humour in the debate and to a considerable amount of levity. I do not want to score any points off the other side, but I do feel that on both sides we have not got down to the business of the occasion. After all, unemployment is not merely purgatory and a tragedy to the poor, but it may be and is a tragedy for the nation. It is a tragedy that affects the genius of the great middle-class—inventors, supervisors, organisers and so on—and it does bear attention from the select and powerful capitalist classes. Without employment, without wages, without purchasing power consumers can make no market for our products, and when scorn is thrown upon the dole hon. Members should not forget this one vital fact, that
at least the dole has a purchasing capacity and every cent of it goes in the purchase of the wherewithal of life, and thus is of the greatest economic importance. I do not think that hon. Members opposite do not understand the problem as well as I do, I do not believe for a moment that they have no interest in the well-being and the welfare of the country, but I have never heard from them a single word about the £1,000,000 a day paid in interest on the National Debt nor any comment on the interest on other loans. I have heard no comment upon that serious waste of finance and of capital, and I feel that when they speak without respect of those who have to seek the dole that at least they ought to examine the other side.
No one in this House can give adequate or valid reasons for the problem of unemployment by which we are beset, but as a student of that problem I notice that France has advanced her productive capacity by 28 per cent., America. by 20 per cent., and Germany by 10 per cent. whereas we have advanced by only 1 per cent. In that state of affairs I say that surely the captains of industry and the masters of finance have some obligations to their country. Even in the use of electric energy, how do we compare with other nations? France produces her coal with electric energy to the extent of 100 per cent, in the Pas de Calais. Our use of it is only 40 per cent. Italy produces her textiles with 100 per cent. of electricity; ours is 19 per cent. The Ruhr is supplied with energy from the Alpine ranges. Alsace-Lorraine is supplied with energy from the upper reaches of the great German river. Electricity is being conveyed 400 or 500 miles to be introduced into industry.
Let us consider the iron trade and the organisation of the Thyssen works. It is true that Thyssen of Germany was a Scotsman—or at least his predecessors came from Scotland. The Thyssen works can turn out 900 tons of iron a day with 30 men, with 15 cwt. less of fuel than any other country, with a ton of coke to each ton of steel. They have their works lighted and heated with energy gathered from their blast furnaces and from their coke ovens. Surely that is a great organisation and goes to explain why Germany has an extra production of 10 per cent. as compared with our 1 per cent.
France has been quoted. After the War M. Poincaré demanded 2½ per cent. in order to raise £500,000,000 to re-establish the industries of France, and he appointed an Economic Committee. To-day France has her State control of all her great industries. She has re-established the old ravished machinery, and has organised her industries to such an extent that now 2,000,000 foreign labourers have come to her aid. Would the Tory party or the Liberals do that? Hon. Members opposite represent the great men of finance, and surely with all their wisdom, whether it comes from Oxford, Cambridge, Eton or Harrow, ought to be able to find some way of dealing with this problem. I am not saying that in any sarcastic spirit, and l only wish I had had a Harrow, Cambridge or Oxford education. Although I do not suppose that I should have been a better man, I should have had a better intellectual outfit.
This is not the time to deal with this problem as a party question. We see the unemployment figures have gone up, but no man can view this state of things without a thrill of anger mixed with sorrow. In discussing these problems it is no use one side blaming the other. We are not here to represent a party, but to represent a nation, and a good nation. You may be a Tory or a Liberal, and able to make a clever little speech sniping at each other, but that does not cut any ice, and it does not help us at all. We are endeavouring to cope with a difficulty which threatens the very destiny of our country, and let us get down to the real facts.
Lancashire is suffering to-day because Lancashire capital has been invested in India, China and France. Large amounts of British capital have been invested abroad. I do not denounce British capitalists for doing that, but at least they ought to be honest. Those capitalists are helping to produce sweated goods abroad which are purchased by our people in. this country, and we have a right to defend the poor woman who has to buy those articles, and denounce the British capitalist who is making money out of the sweated goods which are sent to this country. I do not want to denounce anybody. I think the time is past when this wretched game of politics should supervene. I want my right hon. Friend the Member
for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), with his lively imagination and quick wit—

Sir K. WOOD: And good temper!

Mr. TILLET: And good temper—now and again. I want him, with his distinguished ability, to come down with the rest of us to the sober facts that are presented to us. [An HON. MEMBER: "A Council of Action!"] I would love to see a Council of Financial and Industrial Action, and I would not mind my right hon. Friend being on it if he would undertake to observe the solemn conditions of his responsibility. I intervene because in my own industry 33 per cent. of our good folk are out of employment. I know that our country is being demoralised. I know that all who are out of work are demoralised. Whether they are aristocrats, millionaires or poor men, they are all demoralised when they are not yielding to man and to God the services that are in them.
I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Under this black shadow, I feel, possibly, too overcome to give to this question all the attention that it needs, but I speak in all solemnity as an old worker, as a veteran in our movement, and, I hope, for the good of my country. Whatever I have done, I have done without any desire for party advantage; I have done it for my class and for my country. I am no better than others, and I am sure that there are plenty of men on the other side of the House if they will forget their party and their class, and will love their country and their people, not talking of Labour in disrespectful tones, because, after all, Labour gave 95 per cent. of those that are out yonder. After all, Labour gave you the victory and saved this country, and Labour is left to save the country. We want you to help us in its organisation in such an effective manner that at least we shall forget our class differences and our party differences in a brave attempt—an attempt that requires brains, and requires soul as well as brains—that will bring us all together to forget the levity of mere wit, and come down to the realities of the economic facts.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: If we cast our eyes back to the last Parliament, we notice a very great change on a night like this. In those
days, on the occasion of an unemployment debate, the Socialist benches, which were then on this side, were absolutely crowded. What do we see now?

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Empty Tory benches.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: I had thought of that, but our Tory Members are probably all away in Labour constituencies telling them all about it.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: They are all away on holiday.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: There may be some who are on holiday, but a great many of us are going down to our constituencies to tell them all about what has happened. This question of unemployment has now lost most of its interest for the Labour party. They know perfectly well that there is nothing left in it that is of electoral value to them. We hear a very great deal from the Socialists about the purchasing power of the people, and I would like to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this fact, though I am sure he knows it already. If he will go through the records of the last Parliament, and see what was the effect of taking 1s. off the Income Tax, I think it will give him cause to think. It is a case of cause and effect. When we took 1s. off the Income Tax, there was a fall of 200,000 in the unemployment figures. When 6d. was taken off, there was a fall of 100,000, and when the next 6d. was taken off there was another fall of 100,000. [Interruption.]

Mr. LAWTHER: Is the hon. Member suggesting that we should take it all off?

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: I am not suggesting anything at all. I am saying exactly what happened. Hon. Members can draw from it what inference they like. Unemployment figures have, for that reason among many others, again gone up. This 6d. is going to make a very considerable difference to people who have a pretty good income. What they will do is to get rid maybe of a gardener, a chauffeur, anything you like. [Interruption.] It is true, and you know it is true, only you do not like being told the truth as a rule. A certain number of these people are
going to be put out of employment, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been very well advised. if he had come to the conclusion that raising the Income Tax was not, going to be such a very good way of raising the money and perhaps, if he had waited a little longer for the Sinking Fund, that might have been a better way.
Under the Socialist way of doing things, with nationalisation all round, we are going to be in exactly the same position as under the capitalist system. In the cotton trade, for instance, they have to export, and in the coal trade they have to export. We are going to be up against the question of getting down the costs of production in the same way as under the capitalist system. I think they should think that over before they make rash statements as to how they are going to work under a nationalised system. I have never seen that system followed out to its logical conclusion. I have heard plenty about nationalisation, but I have never heard how it is going to work and to help you to export your goods to another country. The President of the Board of Trade to-day left us in very grave doubt about the dyestuff industry. I suppose that is going to be in the same position as artificial silk and all these other trades which do not know what is going to happen to them. I am certain that is one of the things that tend to unemployment. People are afraid to lay in stocks, afraid to go ahead, afraid to expand. I should think a very great deal more of the Chancellor of the Exchequer than I do at present if he had the courage to say, "I have been wrong and I am going to change it now." I can imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer leading a very fine protectionist raid—not on Protection but for protection—if he only had a little more courage and if he came boldly forward and owned up to making a mistake. Practically every Member of the Socialist party will have to go to his constituents in a very short time and say, "We have made an absolute mistake. We had not the cure for unemployment that we thought we had. Some other reason has turned up why we had not. We made that promise to cure unemployment." [Interruption.] Any number of you. You cannot get away from that, but it is evident that hon. Members do not like being told about it.
It is evident to me that they will hate going to their constituents and telling them how much they have misled them. I know what is going on in Lancashire in the cotton trade. I know what they are feeling there. They are feeling pretty sick with the Socialists. I heard of a certain Socialist Member who went almost weeping to someone and said, "What am I going to say to my constituents? I told them we had a cure for unemployment, and we have not got it. I am almost afraid to go near them." [An HON. MEMBER "Who said that"?] I will tell you one thing; he has left the Chamber. I wish that we could get something out of the Board of Trade about dyestuffs, for it really would help and do a very great deal of good to that trade, which has been built up entirely because of Protection and the prohibition of dyestuffs from coming into this country from abroad. If we take away Protection we shall again have cheap German dyes dumped into this country and the dyestuffs trade, which is a very important one, will be seriously hit. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say that it cannot make any difference to the cost of dyeing. There are a good many people outside the combine who are very keen upon having home-made dyes.
I want to know what is going to happen about the cotton report, how far it is going to be followed out and how quickly is something going to be done? There is a very great deal in the cotton report which we knew a year ago, and practically a year has been lost in getting out the report. Still I believe that it is sound in principle, and I am awfully keen that the vertical combine question shall be tackled as soon as possible. If we can get the merchants to begin it—that is the end at which to begin rather than at the spinning end—we shall find the other ancillary processes dropping in very much more easily. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will say something to us on that subject.

Mr. FRANK OWEN: I should like to recall the House to the position in which we were left when the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett) sat down. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been here to hear that very moving appeal, because I think that it was one which was echoed on these benches as much as it was cheered upon the benches
opposite. The hon. Member for North Salford told us something of France, and I think that we have something to learn from our great neighbour. Hon. Members above the Gangway are always telling us that France is a tariff country and that therefore the whole secret of the prosperity of France is bound up with her tariffs, but the fact that France has to-day something like 1,000 men registered as unemployed is something which has much more to do with trade than with mere fiscal policy. There was a very interesting and illuminating report published a year or two ago by a Mr. Cavill, a British economic expert holding high office in Paris, in which he explained that there were many other factors, and factors upon which we could not count in this country. He told us, among other things, that France had, as a start, a very considerable number of her manhood under arms. Do hon. Members in this House propose that we should arm and maintain under arms something like 750,000 of our unemployed? Mr. Cavill told us that France had a very low standard of living. Do hon. Members upon any side of this House suggest that we should reduce the standard of living of our workers in this country?
There is another thing which Mr. Cavill pointed out. By a policy of inflation, which has amounted in practice to repudiation of debt, France has freed herself from a great deal of her national debt. There are very few Members above the Gangway who would advocate that we should adopt such a policy. It was also pointed out in that report that France was able to maintain upon her soil her peasant population, because for something like 130 years France has had a more sensible land system than we have had. Do hon. Members above the Gangway propose that we should have as reasonable a system of land tenure here? There is, perhaps, a more real reason why France can be held up as an example of a modern State which has maintained the manhood of the country France suffered heavily from the devastated areas. In some respects it was a fortunate thing, because after the War France tackled the problem more vigorously than we have. She reconditioned the whole of her industries, and built those great railways, harbours and roads that we in this country ought to have built for our people. France put
in hand the reconstruction of her devastated areas, and we in this House should remember that we, too, have our devastated areas. The great mining areas and the industrial parts of our country are our devastated areas, and if we put in hand the reconstruction of our industries with the same courage that France has shown, we in this country might be in a happier state than we are.
We have heard advocated from above the Gangway the old Treasury doctrine that money used in development of such a kind is money withdrawn from productive enterprise. Surely such an argument is the bankruptcy of thought, because it presupposes that any kind of money sunk in any new industrial enterprise is money withdrawn from some kind of other productive enterprise. If that be the argument, surely it is time we put our national credit on a different system. I wish the Chancellor of the Exchequer had heard the hon. Member for North Salford advocate the vigorous tackling of these problems, because there is a majority in this House for it, and we commend it to the Chancellor. We have heard something of the theory of purchasing power advanced in this House, a theory which commends itself to the majority of this House. We on these benches—dodos as we are—believe in the theory of purchasing power. We advocated at the last election a reconstruction loan of £200,000,000. I am not sure that it would be sufficient.

Sir K. WOOD: What did Lord Grey say about it?

Mr. OWEN: He accepted it.

Sir K. WOOD: No.

Mr. OWEN: So far as I know, he accepted it. A very prominent journalist and a man noted in various parts of the country and the Empire, Mr. J. L. Garvin, advocated, not only £200,000,000 for this country, but another £200,000,000 for Colonial and Imperial development. Those are ideas that commend themselves to thinking men upon all benches. I think that the country might very well raise money for financing a great reconstruction loan, rather than borrow money for putting into a fund which is perpetually sinking.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would require legislation.

Mr. OWEN: I am sorry. I was provoked into it by my hon. Friend. The Minister of Agriculture has brought in a Bill to-day, the provisions of which we shall read to-morrow. I hope that he is going to include in that Marketing Bill more vigorous measures than have yet been advocated from that side of the House. There is an immense field for agricultural reconstruction, without any fresh legislation. By administrative act the Minister of Transport, simply by the development of electricity throughout the whole of rural England, could re-establish the whole industry of agriculture. He could provide a suitable market for the farmer through the introduction of canning industries and various allied trades in the farming areas. He could provide a cheap and efficient transport from electrical power and he could provide heat and light and power to the farmers and the rural population without any new legislation.

Sir K. WOOD: Why does he not get on with it?

Mr. OWEN: For the same reason I presume, that detained the right hon. Gentleman's own Government. I can only hope that in the Marketing Bill the Minister of Agriculture will have made some immediate provision for the organising of our fruit market.

Mr. HERBERT GIBSON: Like the hon. Member who has just sat down, I was very much impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for North Salford (Mr. Tillett), especially when he was impressing us with the scientific developments that have taken place in America and in the productive field in Germany and France. The hon. Member for North Salford held up these countries as examples to us. The thing that strikes me is that in America, Germany and France, where scientific development and rationalisation has taken place to so remarkable an extent there is unemployment, poverty and want to a very great extent. Those developments have not removed those things, and they will not be removed until we tackle the fundamental problem of the system upon which those countries, as well as our own, is run.

Sir K. WOOD: Socialism.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. GIBSON: Capitalism. Of course, I believe in Socialism. It is because we believe in Socialism that the issue between this side of the House and the opposite side exists. I have in one part of my Division 68.7 per cent. of unemployment, and in that place there are mills that have been closed not merely for a year but for years. You cannot blame that upon the Labour Government. I blame it in the last analysis upon the competitive system. There are people needing the goods that the men and women in the Lancashire mills could provide and are waiting to provide, and yet they are not brought together. Until we get a sufficient majority on these benches to tackle these problems upon Socialistic lines, we shall make no progress. This is no new thing from my point of view. In my election address and at my meetings I made it clear that there was no cure for the unemployment problem inside the framework of capitalism. More people are becoming convinced of that fact. [Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Liberal benches may laugh, but their day is done. [An HON. MEMBER: "So is yours."] In my Division the Liberal vote goes down every time.

Mr. OWEN: In my Division the Socialist vote goes down.

Mr. GIBSON: My fundamental objection to the capitalist system is that it is unchristian.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now embarking on a rather large subject.

Mr. GIBSON: I was only going to touch upon it in passing, and to say that unless we have Christian laws which are based upon Christian ethics we shall never make any progress either in this country or in the world. My fundamental objection to the present system and the reason why unemployment is so great as it is—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member's proposals would involve legislation.

Mr. GIBSON: I am firmly convinced of those lines.
The mills of God grind slowly, But they grind exceedingly small.
to which I will add two more lines:
And the mills of God arc the only mills That will grind anything at all.
The Christian reflection of that is to be found in a real Socialistic advance to the solution of this problem.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am not going to discuss the broad general question as to how to solve the unemployment problem. Generally I agree that the capitalist system is the cause of unemployment. I want to raise a question concerning the administration of the unemployed insurance fund, the condition of the men at the moment. When I hear solutions bandied about as to the best method of dealing with the problem, I generally agree with the Socialist case, and certainly I agree that the ultimate cure for the problem is an alteration of the means of life from private ownership to Socialist ownership, but at the same time the Socialist party promised that during the transition period they would endeavour to make the lot of the masses of the people easier. They will have to do more than that. They must show that in the transition period they have accomplished more by legislation for the great masses of the common people than any other political party. I am more concerned with the lot of the unemployed at the moment than in any ultimate cure for unemployment. Mankind, with its capacity for wealth production ever increasing, must constantly throw more men and women out of work, and the problem we have to face is not a question of keeping people at work but how we are going to maintain the people who are thrown out of work.
The question I want to raise with the Front Bench is the announcement by the Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister recently that they were setting up a non-party or all-party committee to consider unemployment insurance and its administration. I am aware, from answers to questions, that this committee is to go not so much into the general question of insurance as into the case of those who have not got an insurance qualification for benefit. It has also been said that the Government alone are to be responsible for any legislation that results from the committee's report. Every politician who has been here any length of time knows that the moment any Bill that has to deal with finance
is introduced it must have Government backing. If a committee is set up it must have a purpose in view. What is the purpose of this committee? If the present administration of unemployment insurance is the problem to be dealt with, there is no need for a new committee. We are told that the present method of dealing with those outside the insurance contributions cannot go on, and that some new method has to be adopted.
I wish to know what kind of evidence this committee is going to take. Are the public to be asked to give evidence? Is the Trade Union Congress to be allowed to give evidence, or outside bodies such as the chambers of commerce and the trades councils of the country? What is to be the distinction between this committee and the Blanesburgh Committee or the Morris Committee? Is the evidence to be taken in public and published? The Government say that they take responsibility, but if an all-party committee is set up give-and-take all round will be expected, and each party will make some contribution towards a solution of the question. What does that mean? It means that our party must make some concessions to the Tory element and the Liberal element on the committee, and that those parties in turn must make some concession to us. It means in effect that what you will get from this committee is a report which represents a concession on all sides.
What is the concession? It is plain from the Prime Minister's statement and other statements, that those outside the insurance contribution limit are to be treated differently from those who have contributions standing to their credit. It is right that we should know the terms of reference of this committee and what is in the Government's mind in regard to the committee. We should know exactly what matters are being remitted to the committee and what are its powers and its status. There is the danger here of a great disservice being done to the unemployed. This step is, possibly, going to lead to the separation of the unemployed into two categories—those who have contributions to their credit and those who through long periods of distress have fallen out in the payment of contributions. I appeal to those in charge to consider this aspect of the question. No matter how responsible
this Committee may be; no matter how easy it may be to get through legislation based on the report of a committee representing the Front Bench Members of all parties, I put this plea to the Government. If they start to separate the unemployed into two categories in this way the first effect will be to take away from the Employment Exchanges the real duty of finding alternative work for those who have been a long time out of employment. You will be taking away the initiative of the Exchange in regard to finding posts for these people. Therefore you will be doing a disservice to the men and women who have been a long time unemployed and who ought to have the first opportunities of getting work. You will be practically sentencing them to death, as far as the opportunity of getting work is concerned. You will place them in a different category from their unemployed colleagues.
If public statements are any criterion, it is said that the charge is not to be on public assistance and that it is not to be on insurance. As far as I can make out, it is to be a cross between the two. To some extent, the Exchange is to be responsible, and to some extent local public assistance is to be responsible, but it means that certain unemployed people are to be treated differently in future, although they are on the same footing as other unemployed persons. I ask the Minister to state the terms of reference definitely and tell us the purpose of the committee. Are they to consider only the people outside the insurance qualification? Are those with 30 stamps not to be considered and if so, is the committee to find some other way of Meeting unemployed needs apart from the Insurance Fund?
During the past 12 months there has been a strong agitation for altering the benefits or altering the standard of life, and the case put forward is this. After all, it is said with a fair amount of foundation, it is an insurance fund, and therefore those who are receiving benefit ought to receive it on an insurance basis. But our reply to that is that you cannot deal with this great human problem on an insurance basis; you cannot make those who are going to receive benefit dependent on their livelihood on whether a contribution has been paid or not. Human considerations override all those considerations, and there may be pressure
brought to bear on this committee. It may be that in order to get a compromise they will do as was done in the case of the Blanesburgh Report, where, despite Labour party commitments, those who signed it for the Labour party thought they were getting the maximum they could get out of a non-party committee.
There may be pressure brought to bear to alter the standard of benefits for those outside the insurance scheme, to make those who have not a qualification receive less, or, if they receive the same, to receive it under more stringent conditions than those inside the insurance scheme. I would say to the Lord Privy Seal, who represents a Welsh constituency, that he must know the terrible ravages of unemployment, and I trust he will not listen to any pressure for a reduction of benefit. Far from listening to such a demand, I hope he will get his colleagues convinced of the desirability and the imperative need for an immediate increase this winter of the unemployment benefit.
I only hope the Minister, in reply, will first of all give a guarantee that there shall be no lowering of benefit to any section of the unemployed, that there shall be no worsening of the conditions under which they receive benefit, that there is to be no placing of the responsibility of keeping them on the rates, but that it shall be a national burden, and that we shall be told the terms of reference to the Committee and assured that the evidence will be heard in public.
This is the tenth or eleventh winter of the severest unemployment, and it is no answer to say that some system of tariffs, Free Trade, or something else is the cure. What these people want is a decent income to make ends meet. No scheme that may be held up can be brought into being to meet anything like the need of the unemployed this winter. It must therefore be inevitable that millions of men, women, and children must be suffering this winter, no matter how good the intentions of the House of Commons and our Front Bench may be. Consequently I ask that they take the earliest possible steps to do the big, right, proper, and generous thing to the unemployed, the most defenceless section of the community, and see that every child of an unemployed person is as well treated and cared for as the child of any Member of this House, that
that child gets a decent standard of life. The present 2s, is not a decent standard, and I hope the Minister will tell us that there is going to be no reduction of benefit, and that he will announce that it is his duty and intention on the Committee to see that the unemployed are given a decent income this winter.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: I have listened to the same debate as we have had this evening on many another night, and I fail to remember a single argument which would put a thousand men permanently into employment. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been talking Socialism know perfectly well that Socialism would never improve anything and would never sell a pound's worth of goods. If we spent £400,000,000 on schemes it would be only a palliative. You would not put another man permanently in employment. It might give employment to 100,000 or 200,000 men for two years, but at the end of that time we should be in exactly the same position. We are bound to come back to what we believe to be the only real remedy for unemployment—the protection of our industries and agriculture.

Mr. SPEAKER: That would certainly need legislation.

PUBLIC WORK FACILITIES BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Procedure for conferring on local authorities and statutory undertakers power to execute works.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 10, leave out "an order made," and insert
a scheme made, and confirmed by Parliament.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Most of these Amendments are drafting Amendments to carry out the desire of the House, and I do not propose to deal with any of them unless any hon. Member wishes and they happen to be points of substance.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 3, line 42, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 42, after the word "and" insert "section one of."

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I propose to say a word about this Amendment, which makes Section I only of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, apply here. As the Bill was first drafted it would appear to give a definite right to persons to appear for the assistance of the parties before an inquiry and that was never intended. It was intended also that all inquiries should be public. I therefore propose to accept the Amendment.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 11, lines 29 and 30 agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Compulsory Purchase Orders.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, leave out lines 29 and 30.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I have a word to say on this Amendment. As the Bill stands all statutory undertakings, including those making profits, had the benefit of assessment of compensation. As a matter of fact in Private Bill legislation this right has never been given to profit-making companies, and it has been pointed out that while this Bill is primarily a machinery Bill designed to maintain the status quo and not to make substantial alterations in the law, as the Bill stands it would confer an additional advantage on statutory undertakings. An Amendment has
been made in another place to make it quite clear that this special advantage given to local authorities in the Bill does not apply to profit-making statutory undertakings.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 12, line 3, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 3, leave out "thirty-two and insert "thirty-three."

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege, as it enables the Minister to relieve local authorities from paying rates and land tax during a longer interval.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. SPEAKER: I will cause a special entry to be made in the Journals of the House.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

HOUSING (No. 2) BILL.

Message from the Lords:

"That they agree to the Amendment made by the Commons to the Housing (No. 2) Bill, in, lieu of certain of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and to the Commons consequential Amendment to the Bill, without Amendment; they do not insist on certain of their Amendments to which disagreed, but propose lieu of one of the said disagree to one of the by the Commons in lieu of certain of their Amendments, to which disagreed, for which disagreement they assign their Reason."

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendment in lieu of one of their Amendments disagreed to by the Commons and Lords Reason for disagreeing to Commons Amendment proposed in lieu of two Lords Amendments disagreed to by the Commons, be Considered forth-with," put and agreed to.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 12.—(Assessment of Compensa- tion in respect of land purchased compulsorily.)

Lords Amendment in lieu of their Amendment disagreed to by the Commons: In page 11, line 23, at the end, insert
Provided that in any case where it is proved that a building which is injurious or dangerous to health by reason only of the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets on any land in a clearance area was acquired by the owner before the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and nineteen, the arbitrator shall make to the owner an allowance for the value of the building having regard to the provisions of Part II of the Third Schedule to this Act.

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege, as it affects the amount of compensation that may be granted.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I make this Motion on the ground of Privilege. It may, perhaps, be far the convenience of the House if I explain that on this Bill we have to deal with two Amendments which have come back from their Lordships' House. The one with which we shall deal presently concerns the question of disrepair, and on that question, as I will explain, I am not prepared to offer objections; but on the Amendment now before us I feel that I must press the question of Privilege. In any event I should, in other circumstances, have been prepared to argue the merits of the case.
We have arrived now at a very critical stage in the history of this Bill. Their Lordships' House has chosen to disagree with this House on a question which you, Sir, have said was privileged—on a question of compensation which is vital to the Bill; and I have to say to the House very seriously that the responsibility for destroying this Bill must rest on another place. We have arrived at a stage, very late in the discussions on this Bill, when we have to choose between insisting on our privileges or on giving way to the House of Lords on a matter which is vital to the Measure.
I do not wish to enter into a discussion of the merits of the Amendment, except to say that, consistently, at all stages in the passage of the Bill through
the House, I have said that we could never give way on this vital principle of compensation. If it were a matter where adjustment was possible, I should at this stage of the Session have been inclined to give way, because I am not fundamentally an unreasonable person; but this is a problem of very great importance. I am convinced, after my long discussions with the local authorities, that any Amendment which imposes on the local authorities an additional burden for compensation will impose a burden which will weaken the local authorities in their attack upon this problem; and I say that no person in public life dare take the responsibility for adding to the burdens of local authorities on this question. If it should be that their Lordships' House still insist on this Amendment, I put the responsibility for the destruction of this Measure on them, and not on the Government.
I would make this further remark, that in another place to-day, the Housing (No. 2) Bill and the Housing (Scotland) Bill have been under discussion, and this precise point arises on both Measures. In the case of the Scottish Bill the House of Lords do not insist; they made no objection; they have conceded the point which I have always made during the passage of this Bill through the House. While it is not for me to criticise what has happened in another place, I say that for them in one day, within two hours, to have taken two contradictory decisions confirms me in my view that we are right in standing by our original decision a few nights ago to insist on our privilege. If it should be that their Lordships' House tomorrow insist on their opposition, 13 months' work will have been destroyed. This Bill will have ceased to be. I am in the hands of the House. I take this risk. I do not want to offer a challenge to another place, but I suggest to them that there is no public body at this stage, after the full consideration that has been given to this Bill, which would take the responsibility of destroying a measure which, I believe, is going to be of inestimable value to the people of the country. I, therefore, hope the House will insist upon its privilege, and I hope at the same time that their Lordships' House will see in this Measure, however
imperfect it may be, a sincere attempt to deal with a pressing national problem.

Sir K. WOOD: We have had a very melodramatic speech from the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to be rather oppressed, I suppose by the late hour of the evening, but he has very little to complain of in the attitude of this House or of the other Chamber. At many stages of the Bill this party has supplied a quorum for it. But for the fact, particularly on the last day of the Bill, that unless hon. Members on this side and on the Liberal benches appeared in Committee, this wonderful Bill, on which the right hon. Gentleman says he is going to stand or fall, would have disappeared altogether. So let us hear no more about that aspect of the matter. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has any reason to complain of the contentions that have been made by the other House in respect of their Amendments. Yesterday, or the day before, the other House sent down a number of Amendments to the Bill, and I think it can be said with perfect accuracy that a very great majority of them were accepted, and to-night we simply have two Amendments to consider. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that, as far as the second of the Amendments is concerned, he is prepared to meet the wishes, and I hope he means to meet the justice of the contentions that have been put forward. Therefore, we are left with the consideration of one single Amendment. There must obviously be some real reasons why this Amendment is again being pressed upon the House of Commons.
The right hon. Gentleman very wisely did not deal with the merits of the Amendment. His first wards were, "I do not propose to deal with the merits of the Amendment which the other place has sent down". The only matter to which he addressed himself was to draw a distinction between the attitude of the Second Chamber towards the Scottish Bill and the attitude of the Second Chamber towards the English Bill as far as the question of compensation is concerned. He has neglected to tell the House that the Government themselves have made a very considerable alteration and exception in regard to the principle
of compensation. I see that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State are in their places, and I am sure that they will agree with me when I say that they have not taken up the attitude which the English Ministers have taken up on the question of compensation. There is a vital difference in this matter which the Minister of Health has not explained to the House. If hon. Members look at the Scottish Bill, they will see that a considerable distinction has been made. Therefore, it is idle for the right hon. Gentleman to come here to-night and say that the Lords have made a contradictory decision as far as these Bills are concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who has taken part in the proceedings on both Bills, will bear me out when I repeat that there is here a considerable difference of principle. It is a vital matter, and Members of the House must be prepared to deal with it however late it may be. After all, we have to deal with the merits of this matter. What is the proposition which has been sent to us by the Second Chamber? When this Amendment was first sent down from another place, an hon. Member, who is not here to-night, took considerable exception to the fact that in the first proposal which the Second Chamber made it was suggested that the owner either of property or of a business which was condemned on account of the bad arrangement of streets should receive compensation. He stated that it might very well be that in such a case a purchaser might come along knowing that compensation would be payable and that within a few days after he had purchased the property or business he would receive a considerable addition to the purchase price which he had given
In order to deal with that objection, they have deleted entirely from the Amendment now before the House any compensation for the particular individual. That has been done in order to meet the contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I think, if anything, they have erred in that direction, because one of the blots on the Bill was the fact that the owner of a small business will receive little or no compensation in respect of slum clearance schemes. Hon. Gentleman will hear a great deal more of this within the next twelve months.
That provision has been deleted, and what the House has to decide to-night is whether reasonable compensation should or should not be given to the owner of a particular property—many years ago, and not to-day or yesterday, but in accordance with the year that was first suggested in the Amendment—who has kept that property in repair and has obeyed all the regulations imposed upon him by the local authorities, but whose property is being condemned on account of the bad arrangement of the streets. That is the sole issue which has been referred back by the Second Chamber to this House for decision. The issue has been raised, not from this side of the Chamber only. In another place, it was raised by Lord Buckmaster, who certainly is not only a judicial but a fairminded man. There is a distinction because many men who may decide a matter from the purely judicial point of view may not be regarded in this House as having a knowledge of ordinary affairs. No one can say that of Lord Buckmaster. He said that if this particular objection was met, as it has been, he could not see why the owner of such a property, who has carried out his duties as a landlord reasonably and com-

plied with all regulations, should not receive reasonable compensation. Therefore the whole question is whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to extend the ordinary justice which anyone in this House would desire to receive, if he owned such property. It is quite conceivable—though I hope I shall not be subjected to any allegations in this connection—that any person in this House might own such property. It is perfectly monstrous that in such a case as I have alluded to that the owner should be treated in the same way as the man who has allowed property to get into such bad disrepairs as is in mind. What I suggest would be only reasonable justice, and I urge that the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the melodramatic speech which he has made, should address himself to the merits of the proposal, which I commend to the House as reasonable and fair. I hope the House will reconsider the matter and give consideration to the point sent down to us from another place.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes 15.

Division No. 484.]
AYES.
[11.57 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Edge, Sir William
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edmunds, J. E.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lees, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Egan, W. H.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Ammon, Charles George
Foot, Isaac
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Arnott, John
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Logan, David Gilbert


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Moseley)
Longden, F.


Barnes, Alfred John
Gill, T. H.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Barr, James.
Gossling, A. G.
McElwee, A.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gould, F.
McEntee, V. L.


Bellamy, Albert
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
McKinlay, A.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McShane, John James


Benson, G.
Groves, Thomas E.
Mansfield, W.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Marcus, M.


Bevan, Anourin (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marley, J.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hardie, George D.
Marshall, Fred


Bowen, J. W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mathers, George


Bromley, J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Matters, L. W.


Brooke, W.
Haycock, A. W.
Messer, Fred


Brothers, M.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Middleton, G.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mills, J. E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Montague, Frederick


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hoffman, F. C.
Morley, Ralph


Burgess, F. G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Calne, Derwent Hall-
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Mort, D. L.


Cameron, A. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Moses, J. J. H.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Johnston, Thomas
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Chater, Daniel
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Church, Major A. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Clarke, J. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Murnin, Hugh


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Thomas
Noel Baker, P. J.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Kinley, J.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Compton, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Oldfleid, J. R.


Daggar, George
Lathan, G.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Dalton, Hugh
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Owen. H. F. (Hereford)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawrence, Susan
Palin, John Henry


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Paling, Wilfrid


Duncan, Charles
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Ede, James Chuter
Leach, W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Shield, George William
Viant, S. P.


Potts, John S.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Walkden, A. G.


Quibell, D. J. K.
Shillaker, J. F.
Walker, J.


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Simmons, C. J.
Wallace, H. W.


Raynes, W. R.
Sinkinson, George
Wellock, Wilfred


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Ritson, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
West, F. R.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Westwood, Joseph


Romeril, H. G.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Rowson, Guy
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sanders, W. S.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Sawyer, G. F.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Scurr, John
Tinker, John Joseph
Wise, E. F.


Sexton, James
Toole, Joseph



Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Townend, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sherwood, G. H.
Vaughan, D. J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




William Whiteley.


NOES.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Mond, Hon. Henry
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Butler, R. A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Penny, Sir George
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James



Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




Captain Euan Wallace.


Question, "That this House doth insist upon its disagreement with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Reason for disagreeing to Amendment proposed by the Commons, in lieu of Lords Amendments in page 49, line 43, and page 50, line 1, considered.

CLAUSE 61.—(Interpretation.)

Lords Amendments: In page 49, line 43, after the word "includes" insert "such."

In line 43 after the word "deficiency" insert "arising from default on the part of the landlord."

In page 50, line 1, leave out from the word "walls" to the word "and" in line 4, and insert "as is injurious or dangerous to the health of the occupants."

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendments."
As I indicated on the first Amendment, for the vote on which I thank the House, it is not my intention to ask the House to agree with this Amendment. The Amendment deals with a matter which was not contained in the Bill as originally drafted. Local authorities are in same difficulty as to whether "disrepair" did include the state of the wallpaper. In order to meet their case we included in the Bill, during its passage, a definition of "disrepair." Their Lordships' House does not appear to agree to the concession which I proposed. Therefore I shall propose to leave out the whole of the definition with regard to disrepair,
and to leave the law as it was before the Bill was introduced.

Amendment made to the Bill in lieu of Lords Amendment last disagreed to: In page 49, line 53, by leaving out from the beginning to the word "and" in page 50, line 4.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Committee appointed to draw up Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Captain Bourne, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Charles Edwards, Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Westwood.

Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Committee to withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Reason for disagreeing to Commons Amendment to one of the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Johnston.]

Lords Reason considered accordingly.

Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 14, leave out from the word "includes" to the word "and" in line 20, and insert
such deficiency in respect of internal painting and papering or distempering of walls as is likely to injure or endanger the health of the occupants of the house, except in so far as any such deficiency is attributable to the default or neglect of the said occupants.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. T. Johnston): I beg to move, "That this House doth insist upon its disagreement with the Lords in the said Amendment."
In view of the decision which the House has just taken, unanimously, it would be expedient, in our opinion, that the Scottish Bill should conform to the English Bill in this matter. I therefore move to disagree with the Lords Amendment, and I shall then move an Amendment to the Bill in lieu thereof which would have the effect of deleting entirely the definition of "disrepair", so as to bring the two Bills into common form.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: I think my hon. Friends on this side will be well advised to agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposal, as they did in the last case. It is obviously an occasion on which we have in office and in charge of these Bills people who are unable to give satisfactory definitions of repair, and under these circumstances we are probably better without any definition.

Amendment made in lieu of the Lords Amendment disagreed to: In page 37, line 14, leave out from the beginning to the word "and in line 20.—[Mr. Johnston.]

Major ELLIOT: On a point of Order. Do we not have to explain to the House of Lords why we disagree with one of their Amendments?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes, if it is required I understood, however, that when we took out some words in lieu of the Amendment with which we did not agree, it was not necessary. In that case, I was informed, the formation of a Committee to draw up reasons was not required.

Major ELLIOT: I understood that there was a definite Amendment made in another place with which we disagreed, and I should have thought, therefore, whatever our subsequent action may have been that we should have had a committee appointed to explain our reasons for so disagreeing.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): I understand the position is that in circumstances similar to this case it has not been customary to appoint a committee to assign reasons.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 AND 1929.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Tottenham and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 1st day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Wolverhampton Gas Company, which was presented on the 14th day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Bedford District Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Uxbridge, Maidenhead, Wycombe, and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 15th day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Watford and St. Albans Gas Company, which was presented on die 15th day of July and pub-
lisped, be approved, with the following modifications:—
Page 2, Clause 3, three lines from end of page, delete the words of the Elstree undertaking';
Page 15, Clause 39, line 1, omit the words any other provision of,' and insert 'anything contained in the Order of 1924, the Order of 1929, or.'

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 and 1929, on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Workington, which was presented on the 15th day of July, and published, be approved."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

BENEFICES (TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF PATRONAGE) MEASURE, 1830.

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Transfer of Rights of Patronage) Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
I would be most reluctant to bring forward this Measure at this late hour on the last night of a long Session, if I were not quite convinced that it is non-controversial and will really get the support of Members from all sides of the House. It introduces no new principle; it does not remove from the holder of an advowson any right to transfer a benefice, but it regulates the conditions under which that transference can be made. Under the present system it is possible for the patron to sell or give the right of patronage without anybody in the parish knowing anything about it, and with the Bishop himself being kept in complete ignorance on the subject. This Bill merely requires that a certain period shall elapse before a transference can become effective, so that if any parishioners wish to have something to say on the point, they can make their wishes known to the patron. If any hon. Member would wish to ask a few questions, I should be glad to answer them, but at this late hour of the night I merely wish to emphasize that the Measure takes no right from the patron of the advowson, who still has power to transfer patronage, but it regulates the method by which it is done.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I do not think the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for The Wrekin (Miss Picton-Turbervill) should pass without comment. I regret that these Measures so frequently come up at these late hours, because they are of immense importance to many rural parishes, especially in these days. The comment that I want to make on the hon. Lady's speech is that, having heard a debate in the other House on the matter, I think she is scarcely entitled to describe this as a non-controversial Measure. I cannot refer to the speeches made there, but if she will refresh her memory by looking at them, she will withdraw that remark, because there was a great deal of controversy. I appeal to the hon. Lady to suggest to those responsible for these Measures that, although we cannot alter them, we get them before this time of night.

Viscount WOLMER: May I assure my hon. Friend that this Measure really is non-controversial in the broad sense of the term. The Measure contains an exceedingly modest proposal. It is simply that there should be publicity when any advowson is transferred. With regard to, the time the House is compelled to consider these Measures, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is not, however, within the power of the Church Assembly or the hon. Member who moved this Motion, or any other hon. Member. If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury were able to give an earlier hour for these discussions, nobody would be better pleased than those whose business it is to promote them. We have to take such time as we can get. It is unsatisfactory to take an important. Measure at such a late hour, but this is a Measure on which there has been practically no dispute within the Church, and one which is very modest in its proposals to which no hon. Member has any reason to object.

Mr. FOOT: I do not want to appear to be in a position of raising any objection to a Measure being brought in by members of the Church to which I do not belong, but for which I have the highest regard. I am not able, however, to follow the statement that this is a non-controversial Measure. Representations have been made to me and many Members of the House by members of the Established Church raising objection to the
Measure. I have been urged to do what I could to oppose this Measure, but I have declined because it is a matter on which those of us who are Nonconformists are in an invidious position. I would like to ask, in view of the representations that have been made to many members of the House, if there is any urgency to pass this Measure. It is either a Measure of great importance or it is not. If it is not of great importance, there can be no difficulty in it being considered at a time when we can bring an intelligent consideration to bear upon it. If it is of great importance, it is wrongful to pass it with an inadequate explanation on the eve of the Recess, and when no Member of the House except those who are members of the Ecclesiastical Committee and those who are able to follow ecclesiastical affairs, can place his hand on his heart and give an intelligent account of the Bill. If it is an unimportant Measure, therefore, I ask those who are concerned to meet us who have had these representations. If it is important, is it not fair to urge that those of us who are here between 12 and 1 o'clock in the middle of the night, should not be asked to commit ourselves to a Measure which very few of us understand?

Mr. EDE: I hope the hon. Members responsible for this measure will not press it on the House to-night. After all, it will settle matters for 100 years [Interruption]. Oh, yes, for two lives, though I admit those are exceptional cases. In any event it will settle for a considerable time what will happen in certain districts. All the Measure does is to allow certain people to say that they do not like something to be done. Parishioners are allowed to make certain submissions, but the only advantage of that is that they have had an opportunity of blowing off a certain amount of steam, because they cannot make their protests effective. And that is called "gaining publicity." We ought not to have a Measure like this mixed up with Gas Orders. I am sure the noble Lord himself realised the incongruity of it. If the subject is worth considering at all it ought to be brought before the House in such a manner that we can give a considered and proper judgment upon it. There are serious spiritual interests involved, because this represents an at-
tempt to do something to palliate what a good many people believe to be one of the scandals of the Church. I notice that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. G. Middleton) has gone. He has stood up for everything he could up to now, but even he realised that this case is hopeless.

Mr. BOWEN: I suggest that the opposition which is being shown to this Measure is unnecessary. I cannot understand hon. Members complaining of having to discuss this Measure at this hour of night after the experience some of us have had of having to sit here listening to long speeches through all-night sittings.

Mr. E. BROWN: My complaint is not against this particular Measure: my point is that we get these Measures at this hour time after time.

Mr. BOWEN: I am not aware that those who are responsible for that Measure are responsible for its position on the Order Paper. No one is keener than I am that there should be the fullest possible discussion of all subjects, but I have sat here for hours listening to discussions which could easily have taken place in the daytime.

Mr. E. BROWN: So have we.

Mr. BOWEN: Then we are sufferers together, and I think the objections we have heard about the want of time ought not to weigh very materially in this discussion. The merits of the case itself have been fully explained, and there is no real case for the objection advanced. These matters have to be discussed by the Church Assembly and the presumption is that the Assembly have examined the issues and come to a decision upon them. Till such time as we do not accept responsibility for passing these Measures, that circumstance must, be taken into account, and having regard to the fact that those responsible for the Measure are in no way responsible for its being brought on so late, I suggest that we might reasonably agree to its passing.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division—

Miss Picton-Turbervill and Mr. Rosbotham were appointed Tellers for the
Ayes; but there being no Member willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

Resolved,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Benefices (Transfer
of Rights of Patronage) Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes before One o'Clock a.m.